The nature of Roman Catholic heterodoxy [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

View Full Version : The nature of Roman Catholic heterodoxy

Christopher Dombrowski

19-03-2009, 12:16 AM

It seems in my time studying this issue that there are numerous different explanations as to why the Roman Catholic tradition is viewed as not orthodox and what the substance of their heterodoxy is. I would like to know what the explanations of the fellows on this forum is?

My understanding of this so far is that Rome has rendered itself not orthodox by asserting that "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" and thus dissolving the monarchy of the Father, by asserting that infants are born "stained", "tainted", and "guilty" of the original sin, by asserting that the Mother of God was born exempt from original sin, by denying the Palamite definitions on the Energies of God, by asserting the existence of a third state known as Purgatory, by asserting that the Bishop of Rome is the guardian of the Catholic faith infallibly and above the rest of the Church potentially in opposition to us, that the dead are beyond the capacity of the Church to save from grievous sins, and finally the notion of Jesus leaving a "treasury of merit" for the Church and that the Saints develop a merit as distinct from the direct salvation of God that they may transfer to this treasury.

Feel free to disagree, criticize, add, subtract, or qualify any of the points I came up with.

Andreas Moran

20-03-2009, 06:26 AM

I would like to know what the explanations of the fellows on this forum is?

Would it not be preferable to go to the explanations given by the Holy Fathers and shepherds of the Orthodox Church than for members here merely to offer personal opinions?

M.C. Steenberg

20-03-2009, 12:16 PM

Dear friends,

I hope all will forgive an early message here on focus. There is always a little cringe that runs through my spine when I see such topics raised, as the tendency for them to become simple back-and-forth issues of personal sentiments on ecclesiology is quite pronounced and consistent; and such conversations are outside our scope in this forum.

However, questions of theological positions effecting ecclesiology are indeed questions addressed in the Fathers, and form a part of patristic consideration. So I would like to make a - strong - appeal here at the front that this thread focus explicitly and specifically on patristic considerations and not on questions of modern-day RC / EO relations, which are outside our scope. Please note that, given the volatility of this topic and the tendency for on-line discussions of it quite quickly to degenerate into other things, we'll need to keep a rather strict 'moderational eye' on it, removing posts which go beyond the remit.

To keep to the patristic focus, perhaps some key themes might be useful points of concentration. These might include:

In what ways does the doctrine of a 'double procession' of the Spirit affect, in the mind and writings of the Fathers, foundational doctrinal beliefs to such a degree that it warrants and justifies titles of 'schism' and even 'heresy'?
In what ways does the anthropological belief that guilt is passed on through the generations (i.e. a portion of classic western definitions of 'original sin'), cause the Fathers - through an exploration of their words and writings - to indicate this as an heterodoxy sufficient of categories of schism and/or heresy?
How do the Fathers respond to the later arrival of discussions of 'merit' in the West, and how does this reinforce their views of an heterodoxy in the western Church of that time?
And so forth. Given that there are a wide variety of issues raised in the initial post, I might suggest that an in-depth discussion of each of the issues is not helpful for this thread (in-depth discussion of most of them, as specific doctrinal questions, already exists in other threads and could be better carried on in those). Here, the real focus is how the Fathers' considerations of such points ground and establish their views of the Roman Catholic Church of their day as heterodox to the degree of being called 'schismatic' and even 'heretical'.

And finally, to establish this focus in a constructive way, please can members refrain from simply posing their own views and thoughts on these matters, and provide specific examples from the Fathers to ground and further our discussion.

With many thanks,

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Christopher Dombrowski

21-03-2009, 01:06 AM

Would it not be preferable to go to the explanations given by the Holy Fathers and shepherds of the Orthodox Church than for members here merely to offer personal opinions?

Given that the RCC wasn't quite in their time what it is today, I would think not.

Fabio Lins

21-03-2009, 05:04 AM

I think that what is really important is to define what are the authoritative sources in Orthodoxy about the subject. Most of the fathers are from the pre-schism period, so they are not of much help, although Roman-Catholic often bring their hyperbolic addresses to the Roman bishop as "proof" of universal jurisdiction, something that can be easily refuted by the general hyperbolism that characterized Romaic literature, specially addressing authorities and that followed traditional classic Greek standards of the panegeric.

I think that a good summary to these sources can be found in the book "The Non-Orthodox" by Patrick Barnes and published by Regina Press. I present bellow the section on the Roman Catholics so we can study it:

The many heretical innovations introduced into the Faith by the Latin communion especially the insertion of the filioque clause (“and the Son”) into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Papal dogmas of universal authority and infallibility “ex cathedra”—have without any doubt led to the declaration by numerous pan-Orthodox synods and Church Fathers that Roman Catholicism is persistently and defiantly heretical. Father Michael Azkoul conveniently summarizes these declarations:

If any have doubts that Papists and Protestants are heretics, let him have recourse to history, to the reputable and sagacious opinions and statements of councils, encyclicals and theologians. From the time of blessed Saint Photius, when Papism was coming into being, the Church of God has defined Her attitude towards this ecclesiological heresy even as She had towards the triadological and christological heresies of ancient times.

The Council of Constantinople (879-880) under Photius declared the various innovations of the West to be heretical (J.D. Mansi, Sacro. Council. nova et amplis. collect. Venice, 1759, XVI, 174C, 405C); and the Council of the same imperial city (1009) confirmed the decisions of Photius against the Papists (Mansi, XXXL, 799f). Theophylact of Ochrida condemned the Papal errors (PG 126 224) as did Nicephorus Blemnydes, Patriarch of Constantinople (PG 142 533-564).

. . .Again, George of Cyprus (PG 142 1233-1245), Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople (PG 140 621-757), Saint Marcus Eugenicos (PG 140 1071-1100) and Patriarch of Constantinople, Gennadius (PG 160 320-373) all condemn the Papist heresies as does Saint Simeon of Thessalonica (Dial. Christ. Contra Omn. Haer, PG 155 105- 18 108), the illustrious successor to the most blessed, Saint Gregory Palamas, God-mantled enemy of Latin Scholasticism.32

One could also add the thirteenth-century Synodicon of the Holy Spirit—which is appointed to be read in every Orthodox Church on the second day of Pentecost—, with its many anathemas against the Latin heresies, as well as the Sigillon of 1583—written on the occasion of Pope Gregory XIII’s introduction of the Gregorian Calendar and containing a short summary of numerous Roman errors, with an anathema following each.33 In the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848, “A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, ‘to the Easterners,’”—written in response to Latin reunion overtures and signed by no less than the heads of all four ancient Patriarchates and twenty-nine other Bishops—we read:

§ 5, xv. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of Saint Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope Saint Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.34

The heresies cited in this Patriarchal Encyclical have not been renounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception have been added. The chasm only widens.

While it is true that at various times prior to these rulings the Church was hesitant to issue a formal declaration concerning the heresy of Roman Catholicism, this was often due to exigencies in which prudent archpastoral guidance dictated silence. It was not due to any wavering of the ecclesial consciousness. Such is the explicit thought of Saint Mark of Ephesus:

But [Saint] Mark [of Ephesus], daring more than the rest, proclaimed that the Latins were not only schismatics, but heretics. “Our Church,” said Mark, “has kept silence on this, because the Latins are more powerful and numerous than we are; but we, in fact, have broken all ties with them, for the very reason that they are heretics.”35 Whatever reticence the Church may have had regarding the Latins in the first two centuries following the Great Schism can also be viewed as patient hope for their full return. The largely symbolic date of 1054 does not pinpoint the date of separation of West from East. Nor can one responsibly state that the Roman church ceased overnight to be a repository of ecclesial Grace. Rather, it became spiritually ill, the disease of heresy spread, and the great branch of the West was finally detached from the rest of the Body, a reality which the Saints and various Synods since that time attest. This process may have lasted for decades—or even centuries—after the Great Schism. Speaking of the decline of true Christianity in the West, Father Seraphim of Platina remarks:

One might cite numerous manifestations of this remarkable change in the West: the beginnings of Scholasticism or the academic-analytical approach to knowledge as opposed to the traditional-synthetic approach of Orthodoxy; the beginning of the [“]age of romance,” when fables and legends were introduced into Christian texts; the new naturalism in art (Giotto) which destroyed iconography; the new “personal” concept of sanctity (Francis of Assisi), unacceptable to Orthodoxy, which gave rise to later Western “mysticism” and eventually to the innumerable sects and pseudo-religious movements of modern times; and so forth. The cause of this change is something that cannot be evident to a Roman Catholic scholar: it is the loss of grace which follows on separation from the Church of Christ and which puts one at the mercy of the “spirit of the times” and of purely logical and human ways of life and thought.36

Much more could be cited concerning the heresy of Papism. However, the following remarks from the early eighteenth century by Saint Paisius (Velichkovsky) of Niamets suffice to conclude this section. The individual to whom he was writing was a Uniate priest, and thus Orthodox in nearly every way save for his use of the filioque clause in the Creed and his communion with the Roman Pontiff. Saint Paisius’ wholly Orthodox admonitions seem unnecessarily alarming and fastidious to most modern ears:

. . .All the holy ecumenical teachers who have interpreted the Scriptures as if with one mouth say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nowhere have they written that He proceeds from the Son also. Thus, if the Uniates think exactly like the Romans in such a serious heresy, what hope do they have for salvation, unless they openly renounce this Spirit-fighting heresy and become united again with the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church?

Spare neither property nor relatives if they do not wish to listen to you, but by all means save your own soul from perdition; because there is nothing more needful for you than the soul for which Christ died…. Depart and flee from the Unia as speedily as possible lest death overtake you in it and you be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians. And not only go away yourself, but advise others to go away also, if in your conscience you know that they will hear you. And if they will not hear you, then at least depart yourself from the nets of the enemy and be united in soul and heart with the Holy Orthodox Church, and thus, together with all [the faithful] holding the inviolate faith and fulfilling the commandments of Christ, you will be able to be saved. 37

There can be no mistaking the position of the Orthodox Church vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism.

32 Father Michael Azkoul, “An Open Letter to the Orthodox Hierarchy” (Seattle, WA: St. Nectarios Press Educational Series).
33 Many of these items can be found in the OCIC compendium “Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical?”
34 Similar charges can be found in the Encyclical of 1895, also drafted in response to Roman Catholic overtures of union.
35 Ivan Ostroumoff (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971), p. 122. As Protestant bodies are much less powerful than the Latin church, the declarations concerning them have been historically less guarded.
36 St. Gregory of Tours, Vita Patrum: The Life of the Fathers, trans. Father Seraphim Rose and Paul Bartlett, ed. Father Seraphim Rose (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1988), p. 70.
37 Schema-monk Metrophanes, trans. Father Seraphim (Rose), Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 1994 [1976]), pp. 201-202.

Antanas Blužas OFM

23-03-2009, 02:45 PM

Pax et Bonum!

I am wondering why Gregory Palamas would have the same kind of status in this argument if the discussion is based on Patristics? Maybe I am wrong tell me?
Other problem for me is, that if we are heretic, why the Orthodox churches are "fixed" on seven councils? Is there no need for councils anymore?
Could somebody explain what's "the new “personal” concept of sanctity (Francis of Assisi)", whic is mentioned in the text above?

And here are my historical cosiderations on the given topic:

Since the fourth century, when Christianity became legal and later the religion of the Roman empire, the very strong link between the religion and state started to develop. In order to keep the empire in unity Christianity had also to be in unity, therefore the Christian emperors called the Church Councils to define dogmas of faith. Later when the Roman empire collapsed various arguments began to arise between East and West, for example who's form of liturgy was right, the question of levened or unlevened bread, arguments about marriage of priests, the fasting days, dates of Easter etc. When the Byzantine bishop heard that the Normans do not allow the Eastern rite he banned the Latin rite in Constantinople. Pope Leo IX responded by sending his cardinal Humbert to solve the problem. And later the problem was "solved" when Humbert publicly excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinope in Hagia Sofia in 1054 and the Patriarch gave a responce to this reaction by cursing the pope's legate. This is the official date of the great schism, although it was not the main reason. The tension between East and West began much earlier. After the official date of schism there were negotiations between Rome and Constantinople especially during the invasion of the Turks in 1095. At this time both East and West were still worshiping together. The main problem started in the twelth and thiteenth centuries because of political and cultural reasons. In 1182 there were great anti-latin riots in Constantinople. Furthermore in 1204 Constantinople was sacked by the Western knights of the crusades.
The argument between East and West continued when the question of Filioque was introduced. But this argument mainly was used as a pretext for the historical mistakes of disunity. All these liturgical, political, theological events gradually formed the self identity of Orthodox and Catholic Churches and those different identities separated the Sister Churches. The real problem is that through the ages in history East and West developed different models of governing the Church. In the eleventh century during the reform the Pope declared authority upon the whole Church which was ignored by the East because the Byzantines saw their Church in an emperial context. In the East the emperor has always had a great influence on the Church and they saw themselves as being very autonomic and independant. For example about the time of Nicea there were 5 metropolies and Rome was one of them. Moreover the founding apostles of the Church in Rome superceeded other Churches since the Roman Church was founded by the apostle Peter; also the apostle Paul was martyred in Rome which also gave a great spiritual foundation for the Church in Rome. But Rome does not have any jurisdictional authority, because it is considered "the first among equals". Nowadays Constantinople is considered the first among equals since the Orthodox consider Rome to be apostacised. The other reason why Rome would be granted this title at Nicea was the Roman Emperor who had a great role in this council. Down through the ages in the East the Emperor had a much greater influence on the Church than in the West. But after a long period of time even the Orthodox recognise that the model of "autocephalous" is not the best model. "With no single governing head, each autocephalous Church being clothed with juridical authority, we tend to lose even the slightest, the most elementary kind of co-ordination and initiative." (Nissiotis Nikos, A. 'The Main Ecclesiological Problem of the Second Vatican Council and the Position of the non-Roman Churches Facing It', Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 2, Number 1, Editorial Leonard Swidler, (Duquesne University Press, Winter 1965), p. 60).
The Catholic Church states that from the first ages of the Church we are already able to trace the developements of papacy. For example: "Clement of Rome called the church of Corinth to order in 96, <...> around 190 Victor excommunicated the bishops who did not celebrate the festival of Easter on the same day as Rome". (Comby Jean, 'How to Read Church History, Vol. 1 From the Beginnings to Fifteenth Century', (SCM Press LTD, 1985), p. 103). The Catholic Church sees these events as a developement of primacy.
Because of different historical circumstances Papacy in the West took over the role of the Emperor. The West did not have an emperor since 476 A.D. until Charlemagne took the throne in 800 A.D. Nevertheless the emperor in the West (crowned by the Pope) did not have the same authority in the Church as the emperor in the East since the emperor in the West, unlike the emperor in the East, was never able to consistently impose a spiritual kind of authority on the pope, where as in the East it was happening often. In the West the emperor would not intervene in doctrinal issues. In the East the Emperor had a great influence until the Turkish conquest in 1453.

Even though it is more historical background and not Patrisitc I hope this is helpful.

Fraternally yours br. dcn. Antanas Blužas OFM

Ryan

24-03-2009, 03:36 AM

I am wondering why Gregory Palamas would have the same kind of status in this argument if the discussion is based on Patristics?

Because Saint Gregory is a Patristic source... the "age of the fathers" did not end in the Orthodox church.

Fabio Lins

24-03-2009, 03:37 AM

Dear Br. Antanas,

Here are some answers to a few of your concerns.

As for the inclusion of St. Gregory Palamas and why he is included in a Patristic conversation.

4. The Fathers

The definitions of the Councils must be studied in the wider context of the Fathers. But as with Local Councils, so with the Fathers, the judgment of the Church is selective: individual writers have at times fallen into error and at times contradict one another. Patristic wheat needs to be distinguished from Patristic chaff. An Orthodox must not simply know and quote the Fathers, he must enter into the spirit of the Fathers and acquire a ‘Patristic mind.’ He must treat the Fathers not merely as relics from the past, but as living witnesses and contemporaries.

The Orthodox Church has never attempted to define exactly who the Fathers are, still less to classify them in order of importance.

But it has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the Three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom.

In the eyes of Orthodoxy the ‘Age of the Fathers’ did not come to an end in the fifth century, for many later writers are also ‘Fathers’ — Maximus, John of Damascus, Theodore of Studium, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus.

Indeed, it is dangerous to look on ‘the Fathers’ as a closed cycle of writings belonging wholly to the past, for might not our own age produce a new Basil or Athanasius? To say that there can be no more Fathers is to suggest that the Holy Spirit has deserted the Church.
Orthodox Church, Part II: Faith and Worship, by Bishop Kallistos Ware (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:q3VLE1w6d5sJ:www.fatheralexander.or g/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm+"age+of+the+fathers"+church+orthodox&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk)

IV. The History of the Fathers

"The Spirit breathes in all ages" (St. Jerome).

"Tradition is the continuity of divine assistance, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit...The same Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which "spoke by the Prophets," which guided the apostles, which illumined the evangelist, is still abiding in the Church, and guides her into the fuller understanding of divine truth, from glory to glory." (Florovsky, Vol. 4 p. 16).

It is "theologically" wrong to limit the "age of the Fathers" to any particular period of Church history. The "Fathers" in the Church continue to be born just as the Spirit continues to bring the Church from glory to glory.
(...)
VI. The Beginning of the Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers (1-2 C) (...)

The Apologetic Fathers (...)

The Cappadocian Fathers (...)

The Desert Fathers (...)

The Byzantine Fathers were from the Byzantium era:

They were Sts. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022)
Gregory Palamas (1296)

Nicholas Cabasilas (1354)

Nicodemus (1749-1809) St. Nicodemus was declared a saint in 1955 and his feast day is celebrated July 14.

The Church Fathers (http://http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:NJDkUvWPVB0J:www.assumptionaz.org/index.php%3Fid%3D376+"age+of+the+fathers"+church+orthodox&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk)

One can read the Life of St Theophan here (http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/saints/e_0106_TheophRecluse.htm). He is one of the great Holy Fathers of the last two hundred years—for, as Fr Florovsky has put it, ‘we are bound to say, “the Age of the Fathers” still continues’ (Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. I in the Collected Works of George Florovsky [Vaduz, Europa: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987], p. 113).
Orthodox Blog Logismoi (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:qz4R8QJUJfMJ:logismoitouaaron.blogs pot.com/2009/01/age-of-fathers-still-continues-10.html+"age+of+the+fathers"+church+orthodox&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk)

Antanas Blužas OFM

24-03-2009, 11:24 AM

Pax et Bonum!

Thank you for your explanation. By the term 'Church Fathers' I thought you have in mind purely Patristic age until the 5th century. Now I understand what you mean. I asked the question, because I thought St. Gregory Palamas to be of a what we call in the west a scholastic age . Therefore I thought he would be paralel to our 'Church Doctors' like St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anthony of Padua and others from that period.

Fraternally yours Br. Dcn. Antanas Blužas OFM

Fabio Lins

01-04-2009, 03:47 AM

One thing that I have not seen discussed before, and that is probably due to my lack of knowledge, is a premise that is very fundamental to Roman Catholic ecclesiology: the transmission of personal charismas. It is not difficult to see the prerrogatives of St. Peter in the Gospel. And also some of the Fathers do give him a very high position in the Church.

The real question is: is there somewhere any doctrine or belief that would justify that those prerrogatives personaly give to St. Peter as his personal charisma could be "transmitted"? Was the Bishop of Pergamus the "most beloved" bishop of Christ and a "son of thunder" for being successor to St. John? Were the successors of St. John and St. James considered also Pilars of the Church? And if there is any doctrine of transmission of personal charismas, what is the basis for this transmission? Why would the bishop consacrated by St. Peter in Rome receive that charisma and not the one in Antioch?

Do spiritual fathers transmit their personal charismas (healing, speaking, prayer) to their spiritual sons? That would be a precedent for petrine transmission of charisma.

The doctrine of "transmission of charisma" is one that really supports papists claims and should it be proven correct, latins would have a strong argument for them. If, on the contrary, as is my impression right now, "transmission of charisma" is a false and heretical doctrine, than the whole papist house would fall down.

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

Isaac Crabtree

02-04-2009, 12:13 PM

In light of Deacon Matthew's post about the focus of this thread, I would like to also add that there is an additional dilemma in "using" the Fathers to support or defend either position, since this can be done well or poorly-- we Orthodox (and Catholics, too) did not trade "Scripture Alone" for "the Fathers Alone." Often the Fathers of one age will speak imprecisely about a matter that was not then in controversy, only to have it used centuries later in a completely different context. Someone has already mentioned the Romaic inclination for hyperbole when it came to flattery of dignitaries.

St. Photius also mentions how these imprecisions in some of the Fathers can be misused in his excellent polemical work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. In responding to those who advocated filioquism and relied upon some phrasing in some of the early Western Orthodox Fathers who had written imprecisely that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son," not explicitly differentiating between the Spirit's eternal procession and His economic one, he writes:

"Admittedly, those things were said (by Augustine and Jerome). But perhaps they spoke out of necessity in attacking [pagan] Greek madness, or whilst refuting heresy, or through some condescension to the weakness of their listeners, or due to the necessity of any one of the many things presented by daily life. If, by chance, such a statement escaped their lips because of one or more of the above reasons, then why do you still dismiss their testimony, and take as a necessary dogma what they did not mean as a dogma? Do you not realise that you bring irreparable destruction upon yourselves by enlisting those men in your rebellious contention?"

I just think that St. Photius' words are sage advice about quoting the Fathers to support our positions-- not that we shouldn't do so, but that we should do so circumspectly, aware of the contexts in which they wrote, or even simply the contexts of the quotations themselves! How many are the pages attempting to "prove" papal supremacy AND sola scriptura (among many other things, I'm sure) from the writings of the holy Fathers by producing little snippets of their works devoid of any context whatsoever.

I might also wish to veer slightly aside from these things and maybe also suggest that we look for ways in which some of our God-bearing fathers were charitable to the erring Roman Church even post schism, even drawing from their traditions when they seemed complimentary to ours, as with St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite's use of Lorenzo Scupoli's Unseen Warfare, or St. Dmitri of Rostov's use of a very Latinized spirituality unto his own salvation (rosary, meditation upon the Five Wounds of Christ, etc.), or even the Great Russian Church's willingness to receive Latin clerics into the Orthodox fold by a simple "vesting service" throughout most of its history. I agree with the Orthodox Church and anathematize all the errors that the Church commits to anathema, but I humbly submit to the readers that opinions about the actual state of the erring Latin Church and her Christians are numerous even among our Fathers (they agree that it is in error, but it seems that some did not consider it totally lost or totally graceless).

Fabio Lins

02-04-2009, 07:53 PM

As for the question of Grace outside the Orthodox Church, I think that Patrick Barnes has also done a very good job of putting together the Orthodox doctrine about it. Here is an excepert of his book on the non-orthodox.

The Special Ministry of the Holy Spirit

Beyond His general ministry in creation, there is also a special ministry of the Holy Spirit to those within the Church. For a description of this, we turn again to variuos Saints, beginning with Saint Seraphim’s conversation with Motovilov:

But when our Lord Jesus Christ condescended to accomplish the whole work of salvation, after His Resurrection, He breathed on the Apostles, restored the breath of life lost by Adam, and gave them the same grace of the All-Holy Spirit of God as Adam had enjoyed. But that was not all. He also told them that it was expedient for them that He should go to the Father, for if He did not go, the Spirit of God would not come into the world. But if He, the Christ, went to the Father, He would send Him into the world, and He, the Comforter, would guide them and all who followed their teaching into all truth and would remind them of all that He had said to them when He was still in the world. What was then promised was grace upon grace (St. John. 1:16).

Then on the day of Pentecost He solemnly sent down to them in a tempestuous wind the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire which alighted on each of them and entered within them and filled them with the fiery strength of divine grace which breathes bedewingly and acts gladdeningly in souls which partake of its power and operations (cf. Acts 2:1-4). And this same fire-infusing grace of the Holy Spirit which is given to us all, the faithful of Christ, in the Mystery of Holy Baptism, is sealed by the Mystery of Chrismation on the chief parts of our body as appointed by Holy Church, the eternal keeper of this grace.18

In The Spiritual Life and How to Be Attuned to It, Saint Theophan the Recluse writes:

Such a disposition of our soul [towards salvation] makes it ready for Divine communion, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, which has acted hitherto from the outside by arousing us, establishes itself within, not directly, but through the means of a sacrament [Mystery]. The believer repents, is baptized and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). This is the very action of Divine communion—living and active.19

The spiritual classic Unseen Warfare makes a similar statement:

Thus teach the holy fathers. Saint Diadoch is the most definite among them, when he says that before holy baptism Divine grace moves a man towards good from without, while Satan is hidden in the depths of the heart and soul. But after a man has been baptised, the demon hovers outside the heart, while grace enters within (Philokalia 4. 76).20

Speaking of the manifestation of God’s Grace in the Holy Mysteries, Vladimir Lossky writes:

As He descended upon the disciples [at Pentecost] in tongues of fire, so the Holy Spirit descends invisibly upon the newly-baptized in the sacrament of holy chrism. . . . The Holy Spirit is operative in both sacraments. He recreates our nature by purifying it and uniting it to the body of Christ. He also bestows deity—the common energy of the Holy Trinity which is divine grace—upon human persons. It is on account of this intimate connection between the two sacraments of baptism and [chrismation] that the uncreated and deifying gift, which the descent of the Holy Spirit confers upon the members of the Church, is frequently referred to as “baptismal grace.” . . .Baptismal grace, the presence within us of the Holy Spirit… is the foundation of all Christian life.21

The term “baptismal Grace,” also appropriately called “ecclesial Grace,” helps one to keep in mind an important distinction in the way God relates to those within the Church. Thus, Holy Baptism is the Mystery by which a person is incorporated into Christ, which is His Body, the Church (Eph. 1:22-23).22 By this Mystery, one is given the Holy Spirit and begins to participate as a new reation and “human temple” (1 Cor. 6:19) in the Divine Energies, or Grace, of God. This special impartation of and relation to the Holy Spirit can only be conferred by the Church.

What has been said thus far—especially the distinction between Grace upon and within—helps to provide a theological explanation for the existence of non-Orthodox Christians who undeniably exhibit the workings of Divine Grace in their lives. There are innumerable examples of believers who clearly appear to have had a deep relationship with Christ, as attested by their words and deeds.23

Some famous ones readily come to mind: C. S. Lewis—a Christian apologist whose thinking was close to Orthodoxy in many ways—is a “hero” to innumerable Christians of every variety. His writings have been instrumental in leading many to faith in Christ. Then there is Mother Theresa, who is revered by thousands as a model of Christian charity. One also recalls William Law, who wrote the challenging Anglican classic on the spiritual life, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. And we cannot forget Cardinal John Henry Newman, whose love for God in his intellectual biography, Apologia pro vita sua, is most evident. Of course, Orthodox Christians would readily disagree with many things these people wrote and did. Nevertheless—recognizing in them true feeling, piety, and love for
God—, we can rightly thank God for their lives and work, not resuming to know how He will judge them. In such people it is obvious that God has found hearts that are open to Him.

But Orthodox Christians should also say that this openness is in reality the reception of the external influence of God’s Grace (Divine Energies) upon their lives, which is not the same thing as the internal working of ecclesial Grace given only through Baptism.
Recall the emphases on this distinction in the above passages by Saint Theophan the Recluse. The following from his magnum opus drives our point home with even greater lucidity and ties together the earlier statement about Grace being given to all men:

Thus, for arousal of the slumbering spirit within man and the leading of it to contemplation of the divine way, divine grace either 1) directly acts upon it, and, in carrying out its power, gives the opportunity to break the bonds that hold it, or 2)
indirectly acts on it, shaking the layers and meshes off of it and thereby giving it the freedom to assume its rightful position.

The divine grace that is everywhere-present and fills all things directly inspires the spirit of man, impressing thoughts and feelings upon it that turn it away from all finite things and toward another better, albeit invisible and mysterious world.24

In other words, it could be said that non-Orthodox Christians such as we have listed—being deeply motivated by a love for God which arose from the external operation of divine Grace—“practiced by nature the demands of the law and did what was pleasing to God.”

However, “[none] of them [found] themselves under the activity of the grace which is present in the Church, and especially the grace which is given in the Mysteries of the Church. They [were] not nourished by that mystical table which leads up along the steps of moral perfection.”25 Outside of the Church one may be able to make some admirable moral and spiritual progress. One cannot, however, participate in the Grace-filled life of the Church—an existence that is immeasurably different than one finds in the “mere Christianity” outside26—or, in this life, achieve the ultimate aim of the Christian Faith—deification (theosis).27

Conclusion

When endeavoring to understand the Orthodox doctrine of Grace, one must keep in mind not only the unique Orthodox distinction between the Divine Essence and Energies of the Holy Trinity, but also the two ministerial aspects of the Third Person: the general (external) and the special (internal). The general ministry of the Holy Spirit applies to all of creation and involves a variety of salvific activities. Towards mankind His redemptive ministry is of an external nature. His special ministry—involving the internal operation of ecclesial Grace through initially imparted Baptism—is given to the organic members of His Body and continues in the mystical life of the Church, mainly through Holy Communion.

The Trinitarian ministry of the Holy Spirit is available to all. The Spirit of God operates externally upon all of mankind, bringing those who are willing to the Son—who is the Head of the Church, His Body; and once incorporated into Christ through Baptism—having been imbued with the Divine Energies of God— the newly illumined person is given access to the Father.

One should not conclude from an affirmation that the Divine Energies of God act upon individual persons that the Christian group of which they are a member is therefore a “church” in the truest sense of the word. To affirm such would be to divide the indivisible—for the Church is one as Christ is one—and to allow an admixture of truth with error that denies the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Bride into all truth and preserve Her from error.28 Those Orthodox who observe the virtues found in various heterodox believers and conclude that they must be somehow in the Church because they “appear to be Orthodox in so many ways” have not sufficiently understood or experienced their own Faith. Their charity towards these people is to be commended; yet it must not lead to a distortion of the nature of the Church.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

17 “Homily VIII: John i. 9,” trans. the Rev. Philip Schaff, in Vol. 14 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1s t ser., ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994 [1886]), p. 29, empha sis ours. Cf. St. John 3:19-21; Romans 1:18ff. This set will henceforth be referred to as NPNF. The set of Ante-Nicene Fathers will be noted as ANF.

18 “A Conversation,” p. 14, emphases ours.

19 Platina , CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 199 6, p. 113, emphasis ours.

20 Lorenzo Scupoli, ed. St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mounta in, rev. St. Theophan the Recluse (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), p. 153, emphasis ours.

21 Mystical Theology, pp. 170-171.

22 The discussion of Baptism in Chapter Five may be largely meaningless to those from Protestant confessions which affirm a nominalist view of the Mysteries—e.g., those descendents of the Zwinglian and Anabaptist wings of the Continental Reformation. The Mysteries are to them mere outward signs and do not spiritually effect anything. In these confessional groups, one becomes a Christian by a mere “profession of faith.” Membership in the (invisible) true Church is by “faith alone.” Thus to them, discussions about the “validity” or efficacy of their sacraments will most likely seem irrelevant.

23 Caution is required here, however. Occasionally one will find misguided Orthodox Christians who have adopted as their own one or more “saints” of Roman Catholicism (post-Great Schism), Francis of Assisi being the most common. Although we do not wish to cast judgment upon Francis, to uphold such a person as a model is a grave error, as the following studies clearly bear out: Unseen Light (Blanco, TX: New Sarov Press, 1999, forthcoming); Father George Macris, “A Comparison of the Mysticism of Francis of Assisi with that of St. Seraphim of Sarov,” Synaxis, Vol. 2, pp. 39-56; “Francis of Assisi,” Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 2, pp. 41-42. The divergence of Roman Catholic spirituality from that of Orthodoxy will become readily apparent after reading these.

24 Trans. Fr. Seraphim Rose and the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, The Path to Salvation (Pla tina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996), pp. 109-110.

25 Father Michael Pomaz ansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood, 1994 [1983]), p. 245.

26 On this theme see Archbishop and Holy New Martyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Christianity or the Church? (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1985).

27 On the necessity of divine Grace for Christian perfection see St. John Cassian, The Conferences, XIII. St.John lived in Gaul and was a contemporary of St. Augustine. This Conference is a classic treatise on the Orthodox doctrines of Gra e and free will.

28 St. John 14:16, 26; 16:1 3; cf. also 1 Timothy 3:15; St. Matthew 28:20 ; 2 Timothy 2:15.

The Holy Spirit teaches the Church through the holy Fathers and Teachers of the [Orthodox] catholic Church. . . . The Church is taught by the life-creating Spirit, but not otherwise than [has been taught] through the holy Fathers and Teachers. . . . The [Orthodox] catholic Church cannot sin or err or express false-hood in lieu of truth, for it is the Holy Spirit who forever works through the Fathers and Teachers, who faithfully ministers and protects her from error. (St. Justin of Chelije, summarizing the Orthodox
position on the infallibility of the Church with an excerpt from a recent Epistle of the Orthodox Patriarchs, in The Struggle for Faith, pp. 134-135.)

Isaac Crabtree

03-04-2009, 09:31 PM

I like Barnes' book, but I do wonder about some of the conclusions he draws. While we get from his quotations of Unseen Warfare and St. Theophan that the grace of the Holy Spirit works 'from within' in the holy mysteries, this doesn't really answer our questions about the heterodox who still retain at least the outward forms of the holy mysteries, and in particular for this thread, the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know if we really want to go there, though... maybe that's too broad for this discussion.

Fabio Lins

03-04-2009, 10:16 PM

Hi Isaac!

My understanding is that these outer forms do not mean anything in themselves, although they do in terms of the intention of the people practicing them.

Where there is a true love for Christ in those rites, there would be exterior Grace, but never the Body of Christ.

I try to really stick to "Body of Christ" concept here. For example, if cut my hand off, it would still be my flesh and blood (for some time), it would still have my DNA, that is, it would still have many of *my* forms.

That is what a separated church is in relation to the Body of Christ. Those rites are like the "DNA". They are truly the "DNA" of Christ, but in a dead separated organ, thus, with no life in them. Just the outward Grace that the Holy Spirit in His General Ministry pours upon their Christ-thirsty hearts.

That is why I think it is also possible to distinguish "body parts" that came from the Church from those that were simply made up by someone completely detached.Why it is valid to differentiate between a group that baptyzes in the Name of the Trinity and one that does not. One is truly a part of the body, although separated and dead. And the other is just a prop made to look like the real thing.

Isaac Crabtree

04-04-2009, 04:11 AM

Fabio,

That sounds like a helpful way to understand it, although I think that it might be more complicated than that. There was a great essay about all this by former Patriarch Sergius (gasp!) of Moscow, The Significance of Apostolic Succession in Heterodoxy (http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/succession-1.html). He speaks of why we do what we do with the heterodox when we receive them according to three different rites, esp those which have maintained apostolic succession (receiving RC priests in their orders, for instance).

I think a very good summary of the whole matter was written by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, its Basic Principles of Attitude to the Non-Orthodox (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=91), an excerpt:

1.15. The orthodox Church, through the mouths of the holy fathers, affirms that salvation can be attained only in the Church of Christ. At the same time however, communities which have fallen away from orthodoxy have never been viewed as fully deprived of the grace of God. Any break from communion with the Church inevitably leads to an erosion of her grace-filled life, but not always to its complete loss in these separated communities. This is why the orthodox Church does not receive those coming to her from non-orthodox communities only through the sacrament of baptism. In spite of the rupture of unity, there remains a certain incomplete fellowship which serves as the pledge of a return to unity in the Church, to catholic fullness and oneness.

1.16. The ecclesial status of those who have separated themselves from the Church does not lend itself to simple definition. In a divided Christendom, there are still certain characteristics which make it one: the word of God, faith in Christ as God and saviour come in the flesh (1 jn. 1:1-2; 4, 2, 9), and sincere devotion.

1.17. The existence of various rites of reception (through baptism, through chrismation, through repentance) shows that the orthodox Church relates to the different non-orthodox confessions in different ways. The criterion is the degree to which the faith and order of the Church, as well as the norms of Christian spiritual life, are preserved in a particular confession. By establishing various rites of reception, however, the orthodox Church does not assess the extent to which grace-filled life has either been preserved intact or distorted in a non-orthodox confession, considering this to be a mystery of God's providence and judgement.

I think it was Met. Kallistos Ware who wrote that there are different ways of being separated from the Church just as there are different ways of being united to Her. Someone can be 'outside' but on the back porch, so to speak, while another can be 'outside' and miles away.

Fabio Lins

04-04-2009, 06:51 PM

Hi Isaac!

I think that the full meaning of that part of the document can be seem when Ch. 01 and 02 are read together:

2.4. The Orthodox Church cannot accept the assumption that despite the historical divisions, the fundamental and profound unity of Christians has not been broken and that the Church should be understood as coextensive with the entire "Christian world", that Christian unity exists across denominational barriers and that the disunity of the churches belongs exclusively to the imperfect level of human relations. According to this conception, the Church remains one, but this oneness is not, as it were, sufficiently manifest in visible form. In this model of unity, the task of Christians is understood not as the restoration of a lost unity but as the manifestation of an existing unity. This model repeats the teaching on "the invisible Church" which appeared during the Reformation.

2.5. The so-called "branch theory", which is connected with the conception referred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity existing in the form of particular "branches", is also totally unacceptable.

2.6. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between denominations.

2.7. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize "the equality of the denominations". Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies through repentance, conversion and renewal.

2.8. Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially tragic misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because of a lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realise that, in spite of all the differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in "what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human passions, to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances which are secondary from the Church's point of view. Also unacceptable is the argument that the Orthodox Church differs from other Christian communities with which she does not have communion only in secondary matters. The divisions and differences cannot all be reduced to various non-theological factors.

2.9. The Orthodox Church also rejects the assumption that the unity of Christendom can only be restored through common Christian service to the world. Christian unity cannot be restored through agreement on earthly matters, in which case Christians would be united in what is secondary but still differ in what is fundamental.

2.10. It is inadmissible to introduce relativism into the realm of faith, to limit unity in faith to a narrow set of necessary truths so that beyond them "freedom in what is doubtful" may be allowed. Even a position of tolerance towards differences in faith is unacceptable. At the same time, however, one should not confuse unity of faith and the form of its expression.

2.11. The division of Christendom is a division in the experience of faith itself, not just in doctrinal formulations. Formal doctrinal unity does not exhaust what is meant by the unity of the Church, though it is one of its essential conditions.

That is why I think that thinking of it all as an actual body brings the best explanations.

With today's medical technology it is possible to replant severed parts of the body *if they are preserved well enough*. Also, depending on the conditions that caused the "amputation" different procedures of replantation must be used. This is an image the Fathers could not have used since the procedure did not exist at their time. But St. Paul did use the next closest image, that is, using the body of plants, into which they at the time could actually replant branches:

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; {among them: or, for them}
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, {take heed} lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in {his} goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Romans 11

So, using the humanized version of St. Paul's image, we can say that:

1) a severed part is a severed part. No "invisible" links, no life. A stone dead severed limb;

2) When a limb is severed it goes through a process: for some time it still has some life in it. Then it dies, but it still has the form and shape that the life of the body had given it. But it starts a process of decay that wil eventually lead to its complete loss of form. The larger the body part severed, the longer this decay process will take;

3) Depending on the way the cut was made, the process of replantation may demand different procedures. One must also take into consideration the state of preservation of the lifeless severed limb. But all life, all healing power is in the living body which pours it again into the formely dead limb.

Likewise with the Church which is the body of Christ.

1) a severed community is a severed community. No invisible "links", no life.

2) When a community is severed it goes through a process: for some time it still has some life in it. Then it dies, although they keep the form a and shape they had acquired through the life of the Body. But they start a process of decay that will eventually lead to the complete loss of form. The larger the community in question, the longer it will take;

3) Depending on the way the cut was made, different procedures may be required for restablishment of communion. Still, all life, all healing power comes forth from the Living Body, which pours it again into the formerly dead person or community.

Isaac Crabtree

05-04-2009, 06:17 AM

I too believe all of this-- the branch theory at its worst is a heresy which violates our faith in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

That having been said, and I ask for your indulgence in my continued response, the history of our Orthodox Catholic Church has revealed that not all rifts are schisms. Anton Kartashev, a Church historian of the last century, has also written about this (saw it on ROCOR's website at one point), that there is a difference sometimes in schism and a "falling out" or a rift.

I'll supply some examples:

1) St. Basil and the Semi-Arians. St. Basil and several others under St. Meletius of Antioch were not technically canonical, in the sense that there had been another canonically elected patriarch of Antioch, Paulinus. This dual-hierarchy was a division because they were on the outs with one another for quite some time. Later, when these groups of Orthodox came back together, it was not through the "repentance" of one of the groups, but rather simply a reconciliation... both had preserved the Orthodox faith, but had been divided over other things (particularly the fact that St. Meletius had been elected by the semi-Arians but confessed the Orthodox faith).

2) The Church of Georgia. For around a century, the Church of Georgia refused to recognize the Orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Many Syrian monks fled there at that time to avoid all of those complications. Nevertheless, 100 years later, they were received back with the proverbial "stroke of a pen" when their governing synod formally recognized Chalcedon as expressing the apostolic Faith. No reordinations, no baptisms or chrismations, (nor even a striking of saints from her local commemorations who had their doubts about Chalcedon, I've read... but the source I've since forgotten), just reconciliation... although one might argue that really it was repentance on the part of the Georgians, the fact remains that the Orthodox Church's actions implicitly acknowledge the ecclesial reality of the Church of Georgia in spite of its blunder.

3) Uniates received back into Orthodoxy in lands reconquered by the Russian Empire. Many millions of uniates petitioned to be received by the Russian Church once the armies of Katherine the Great had retaken these lands, and were simply received back into communion. The legate of the Russian Church to Constantinople was asked by the Ecumenical Patriarch how these were received-- baptism? chrismation? vesting? The legate replied that they had simply been received with love. He elaborated that they had remained in spiritual communion with the Church despite being externally captive to Latin subjugation and forced to commemorate and commune with papists.

These are three examples out of a thousand. Why do I present them? Not because I disagree with you, brother! I don't. A branch cut off from the True Vine withers and dies. However, this does not necessarily mean that a branch estranged from other branches is necessarily (much less automatically) severed from the Vine. This we should leave to God's judgment, and when we see God's grace active in some heterodox Christian communities, we can rejoice because in some way that community has retained some vestige of what it lost upon estrangement from us branches. I don't mean to sound like an ecumenist here, because I certainly don't sympathize with the 'invisible Church' theory or with dogmatic reductionism... I simply want to make sure that we address the facts with wholemindedness.

In the context of Catholicism (since this is what the thread is about), these Christians have erred in all the ways in which Mr. Dombrowski had first mentioned. Nevertheless, the Church's consciousness has at times recognized the presence of Grace even in their mysteries... not because of their mistakes but in spite of them. I simply want to demonstrate that this is an opinion among Orthodox Christians, even ones of great sanctity: please see this excellent essay (http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch0.html) by Archimandrite Ambrosy (Pogodin) which addresses this subject more fully and provides citations.

Thanks for the excellent discussion.

Ken McRae

06-04-2009, 12:00 AM

He elaborated that they had remained in spiritual communion with the Church despite being externally captive to Latin subjugation and forced to commemorate and commune with papists.

This has the ring of St. Symeon the New Theologian's view of the 'mystical aspect' of apostolic succession, through what he refers to as "the golden chain of saints." However, according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (and and many others like him,) the true Church possesses both lines of apostolic succession. The lack of the episcopal line of succession necessarily places one outside the Church.

Isaac Crabtree

06-04-2009, 02:45 PM

This has the ring of St. Symeon the New Theologian's view of the 'mystical aspect' of apostolic succession, through what he refers to as "the golden chain of saints." However, according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (and and many others like him,) the true Church possesses both lines of apostolic succession. The lack of the episcopal line of succession necessarily places one outside the Church.

Ken,

I agree, but what constitutes losing the episcopal line of succession? In the Russian Church, Latin clergy were received by simple renunciation of errors, vesting and celebration of the Liturgy. The order for receiving Anglican priests, however, required ordination with the wording, "If not already ordained, I ordain..." (See my previous links to the Pogodin Essay, along with the one by Patriarch Sergius). I think perhaps I am getting beyond the original scope of this post, but I think we need to try to be clear about what we mean.

Ken, I think you are saying that Rome's failure to maintain bishops which were 100% Orthodox means that they lost apostolic succession, and therefore they are outside the Church. I have no problem with this view-- although I myself wonder whether the canonical boundaries of the Church are absolutely contiguous with the charismatic boundaries of the Church, esp. because since at least the time of St. Basil the Great the Church has maintained three different modes of reception for those coming into the Church. What exactly this means is one of those big debate questions which is probably not where the thread's author wanted to take this!

To get us back on track, maybe we could discuss this EXCELLENT essay by Fr. Thomas Hopko, Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in Our Time (http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Thomas-Hopko/Articles/Roman-Presidency-and-Christian-Unity.html/), in which he enumerates and lays out very clearly the fall of the Roman Church and the steps necessary for Rome to once again return to true catholicity in communion with the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

Ryan

29-09-2009, 01:52 PM

Owen Jones

29-09-2009, 06:54 PM

Let's face it, Church unity has never existed to the degree or in the manner that many idealists wish. Before 1054 there was the schism between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians in the East. Before that, the schism between Orthodoxy and Arianism, etc.etc. From an Orthodox perspective, I would think that if there is any importance placed on formalized church unity, it would be to arrive at a unity over Chalcedon, without debasing the meaning of words.

Ironically, it was imperial Christianity that led to formalized schisms. Before that, Christians fought like crazy over their different beliefs and practices, but nothing was actually formalized, and people muddled through. I think historical arguments pretty much fall flat, doctrinal arguments are stronger, but I think the most important argument is by demonstration, and in Orthodoxy you have a preservation of the most important factor and that is true asceticism as exemplified by monastics. If you want to look at a dead limb that has been cut off, all you have to do is look at the state of Western monasticism.

Jonathan Hayward

29-09-2009, 07:17 PM

One brief observation:

Admittedly there have been more Orthodox than Catholics writing on this thread, and Orthodox vary as to how sharp of a position they take. But almost of the Orthodox comments I've read have been trying, in one way or other, to address areas of doctrine and doctrinal compatibility or incompatibility.

Br. Dcn. Antanas's Roman response below seems very striking in that it doesn't address doctrine much at all. It doesn't say either that Orthodoxy is wrong about the procession of the Father or that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are reconcilable on this point; it only provides almost entirely non-doctrinal accounts for the schism. It's worth rereading:

Pax et Bonum!

I am wondering why Gregory Palamas would have the same kind of status in this argument if the discussion is based on Patristics? Maybe I am wrong tell me?
Other problem for me is, that if we are heretic, why the Orthodox churches are "fixed" on seven councils? Is there no need for councils anymore?
Could somebody explain what's "the new “personal” concept of sanctity (Francis of Assisi)", whic is mentioned in the text above?

And here are my historical cosiderations on the given topic:

Since the fourth century, when Christianity became legal and later the religion of the Roman empire, the very strong link between the religion and state started to develop. In order to keep the empire in unity Christianity had also to be in unity, therefore the Christian emperors called the Church Councils to define dogmas of faith. Later when the Roman empire collapsed various arguments began to arise between East and West, for example who's form of liturgy was right, the question of levened or unlevened bread, arguments about marriage of priests, the fasting days, dates of Easter etc. When the Byzantine bishop heard that the Normans do not allow the Eastern rite he banned the Latin rite in Constantinople. Pope Leo IX responded by sending his cardinal Humbert to solve the problem. And later the problem was "solved" when Humbert publicly excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinope in Hagia Sofia in 1054 and the Patriarch gave a responce to this reaction by cursing the pope's legate. This is the official date of the great schism, although it was not the main reason. The tension between East and West began much earlier. After the official date of schism there were negotiations between Rome and Constantinople especially during the invasion of the Turks in 1095. At this time both East and West were still worshiping together. The main problem started in the twelth and thiteenth centuries because of political and cultural reasons. In 1182 there were great anti-latin riots in Constantinople. Furthermore in 1204 Constantinople was sacked by the Western knights of the crusades.
The argument between East and West continued when the question of Filioque was introduced. But this argument mainly was used as a pretext for the historical mistakes of disunity. All these liturgical, political, theological events gradually formed the self identity of Orthodox and Catholic Churches and those different identities separated the Sister Churches. The real problem is that through the ages in history East and West developed different models of governing the Church. In the eleventh century during the reform the Pope declared authority upon the whole Church which was ignored by the East because the Byzantines saw their Church in an emperial context. In the East the emperor has always had a great influence on the Church and they saw themselves as being very autonomic and independant. For example about the time of Nicea there were 5 metropolies and Rome was one of them. Moreover the founding apostles of the Church in Rome superceeded other Churches since the Roman Church was founded by the apostle Peter; also the apostle Paul was martyred in Rome which also gave a great spiritual foundation for the Church in Rome. But Rome does not have any jurisdictional authority, because it is considered "the first among equals". Nowadays Constantinople is considered the first among equals since the Orthodox consider Rome to be apostacised. The other reason why Rome would be granted this title at Nicea was the Roman Emperor who had a great role in this council. Down through the ages in the East the Emperor had a much greater influence on the Church than in the West. But after a long period of time even the Orthodox recognise that the model of "autocephalous" is not the best model. "With no single governing head, each autocephalous Church being clothed with juridical authority, we tend to lose even the slightest, the most elementary kind of co-ordination and initiative." (Nissiotis Nikos, A. 'The Main Ecclesiological Problem of the Second Vatican Council and the Position of the non-Roman Churches Facing It', Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 2, Number 1, Editorial Leonard Swidler, (Duquesne University Press, Winter 1965), p. 60).
The Catholic Church states that from the first ages of the Church we are already able to trace the developements of papacy. For example: "Clement of Rome called the church of Corinth to order in 96, <...> around 190 Victor excommunicated the bishops who did not celebrate the festival of Easter on the same day as Rome". (Comby Jean, 'How to Read Church History, Vol. 1 From the Beginnings to Fifteenth Century', (SCM Press LTD, 1985), p. 103). The Catholic Church sees these events as a developement of primacy.
Because of different historical circumstances Papacy in the West took over the role of the Emperor. The West did not have an emperor since 476 A.D. until Charlemagne took the throne in 800 A.D. Nevertheless the emperor in the West (crowned by the Pope) did not have the same authority in the Church as the emperor in the East since the emperor in the West, unlike the emperor in the East, was never able to consistently impose a spiritual kind of authority on the pope, where as in the East it was happening often. In the West the emperor would not intervene in doctrinal issues. In the East the Emperor had a great influence until the Turkish conquest in 1453.

Even though it is more historical background and not Patrisitc I hope this is helpful.

Fraternally yours br. dcn. Antanas Blužas OFM

It has been my general, for that matter invariable response, that Catholics aiming for reunification show a great deal of warmth but never, ever say "We understand your concern that our doctrine has strayed and here is what we are doing to get to a position you would see as acceptable."

Christos Jonathan

Jonathan Hayward

29-09-2009, 10:42 PM

If you haven't read these encyclicals yet, I'd encourage you to read Deus Caritas Est (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html), have a wonderful moment of being impressed at Rome, and then take a cold shower by reading Mater et Magistra (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html).

The official teaching, at least, of Rome concerning papal encyclicals is that they are of very high authority. They are not irreformible in that subsequent Roman magisterial teachings could reverse them, but they are not thereby optional; Catholics owe a deep obsequium to an encyclical until the magisterium clarifies to the contrary. (I would compare the difference between an irreformible Papal decision and an encyclical to the difference between an ecumenical and a local council in Orthodoxy.)

To give credit where credit is due, Deus Caritas Est (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html) is an impressive document and one that Orthodox can respect: it is properly mystical theology in what it addresses.

To give discredit where discredit is due, Mater et Magistra (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html) was bothersome enough to Catholics with their heads on straight, let alone Orthodox; the joke running through some Catholic circles was "Mater, sic; Magistra, non." Buckley called it "a venture in triviality." An Orthodox response might be, "You have some interesting ideas for how society should be put together differently to have its problems engineered away. Could you explain to me again why the Pope thinks this is theology?"

The impression I've gotten reading through modern Catholic social encyclicals is of a blog occupied by vastly different people each pursuing his own unique ideas through the blog. Of course they are longer, and far better researched, than the worse end of the blogosphere, but what they do not appear to be is unified. Even my quite liberal main secondary source commented that there was a joke running through Catholic seminaries that each Pope would say, "In continuity with my predecessors," and then go in a completely different direction from his predecessors.

If "an encyclical" was just a fancy name for the carefully researched private opinions of disparate Popes, then it might be less of a problem that encyclicals are so disparate, but they are of a very high level of authority and gross disparities between different encyclicals is as disturbing as it would be to have gross disparities between Orthodox local councils, and the encyclicals I've read appear like a blog run by a bunch of editors with major unresolved disagreements.

His Holiness Pope BENEDICT XVI may be the most Orthodox of recent Popes, even closer to Orthodoxy than his predecessor, but this is anything but a sure sign that Rome has simply switched to be closer to Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy re-establishes communion with the present Patriarch of Rome, I see every reason to believe that a few years down the road we will be in communion with a Pope more like JOHN XXIII who wrote the other encyclical I have mentioned.

In that case, we might find reunion with Rome to become faintly reminiscent of union with the UCC when the present author of the pontifical blog happens to be a little more liberal.

Christos Jonathan

Aidan Kimel

30-09-2009, 06:19 PM

It seems to me that, from an Orthodox perspective, that the RCC has slid even further away from us in the 20th century. And I am not simply referring to the liturgical devastation wrought by Vatican II, but the novel ecclesiology that has emerged when Rome talks about eastern churches. No longer is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church. Rather, they say, the Church "subsists" in the Catholic Church but can also be found in separated churches.

Something that makes very little sense to me is that the RCC still considers us (along with the non-Chalcedonians and the Church of the East) to be "true churches" in schism, with valid Eucharist and apostolic succession, despite the fact that we openly reject and contradict a number of RC dogmas. These dogmas include filioque, purgatory, the immaculate conception, and, most recently, Papal supremacy and infallibility. While they argue that our rejection of some of the earlier ones is based on semantics more than substance, no such argument holds for Papal infallibility.

Since we do have the temerity to reject this definition, why are we not heretics? Are some dogmas optional, and if so, how do we know which ones? Is coherent ecclesiology something that went out with Vatican II?

It strikes me that the Roman Catholic Church has a very mechanical concept of apostolic succession that allows them to maintain that heretical and schismatic churches can still be "true churches." Apostolic succession is accomplished simply by making the right gestures (eg laying on of hands), saying the right words, and having the "intention" to confer orders. This succession in turn grants these churches a valid eucharist. This means that the Nestorians and monophysites are "true churches"; if the historic Arians or Iconoclasts were still around, they too would have apostolic succession and valid mysteries from this point of view.

To sum up, I see two newer heresies in the Catholic Church today, in addition to the "traditional" ones:

1. That the Church can "subsist" in one visible body but somehow still be truly present in schismatic or heretical churches. We Orthodox maintain that heretics and schismatics are outside of the Church (this does not, however, amount to a speculation regarding their ultimate salvation).

2. That apostolic succession is not dependent on holding apostolic faith.

I suggest that there already exist sufficient church-dividing issues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism without having to invent a new one.

The significance and meaning of Lumen gentium's subsistit in has been much debated within the Catholic Church and continues to be debated. The meaning of the phrase can only be properly apprehended within the communion ecclesiology that was incorporated into the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. This represented a move away from the juridical ecclesiologies that had dominated Catholic reflection since the Council of Trent. Within a legal ecclesiology, one is either inside the Church or outside the Church. There is no middle ground, no areas of grey. Everything is very simple and clear. If you are in communion with the See of Peter, you are inside the Church of Christ; it not, you're outside. Period. Of course, as observed above, the Catholic Church has, since the third century, and quite probably earlier, also recognized the validity of certain sacramental actions outside of her canonical boundaries. This is not a novelty. It has long-standing patristic support. How one reconciles the all or nothing approach of a legal ecclesiology with the ancient practice of not re-baptizing those who have been baptized in a heretical church is an interesting question.

During the 20th century Catholic theologians came to recognize the inadequacies and limits of a simplistic canonical identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ. Their work prepared the way for Lumen gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html). This document needs to be carefully read.

In Lumen gentium we read the claim that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. What does the phrase mean? It cannot mean that the Catholic Church had abandoned her conviction in her identity as the Church in a preeminent and even exclusive sense: see Karl Josef Becker, "An Examination of Subsistit in (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm)" and James T. O'Connor, "The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3420&CFID=16938703&CFTOKEN=94098768)." But it does signify an important nuancing of this conviction. I reference in particular the illuminating discussion by then Cardinal Ratzinger: "The Ecclesiology Of The Constitution On The Church, Vatican II, 'Lumen Gentium' (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3920&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=519713)." Ratzinger writes:

At this point it becomes necessary to investigate the word subsistit somewhat more carefully. With this expression, the Council differs from the formula of Pius XII, who said in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi: "The Catholic Church "is" (est) the one mystical body of Christ". The difference between subsistit and est conceals within itself the whole ecumenical problem. The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that vision. Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church. This can take place only once, and the idea that the subsistit could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wished to explain the unicity of the Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the Church exists as a subject in historical reality.

The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists" in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. This division is something totally different from the relativistic dialectic described above in which the division of Christians loses its painful aspect and in fact is not a rupture, but only the manifestation of multiple variations on a single theme, in which all the variations are in a certain way right and wrong. An intrinsic need to seek unity does not then exist, because in any event the one Church really is everywhere and nowhere. Thus Christianity would actually exist only in the dialectic correlation of various antitheses. Ecumenism consists in the fact that in some way all recognize one another, because all are supposed to be only fragments of Christian reality. Ecumenism would therefore be the resignation to a relativistic dialectic, because the Jesus of history belongs to the past and the truth in any case remains hidden.

The vision of the Council is quite different: the fact that in the Catholic Church is present the subsistit of the one subject the Church, is not at all the merit of Catholics, but is solely God’s work, which he makes endure despite the continuous unworthiness of the human subjects. They cannot boast of anything, but can only admire the fidelity of God, with shame for their sins and at the same time great thanks. But the effect of their own sins can be seen: the whole world sees the spectacle of the divided and opposing Christian communities, reciprocally making their own claims to truth and thus clearly frustrating the prayer of Christ on the eve of his Passion. Whereas division as a historical reality can be perceived by each person, the subsistence of the one Church in the concrete form of the Catholic Church can be seen as such only through faith.

I do not know how an Orthodox theologian who has thought deeply about these matters would respond to the above, but I can hardly think that he would consider the subsistit in as itself church-dividing; indeed, I could easily see the phrase being adopted by Orthodoxy to advance its own ecclesiological claims. After all, as Fr Georges Florovsky (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-01-e.html) observed over seventy years ago:

As a mystical organism, as the sacramental Body of Christ, the Church cannot be adequately described in canonical terms or categories alone. It is impossible to state or discern the true limits of the Church simply by canonical signs or marks. Very often the canonical boundary determines the charismatic boundary as well, and what is bound on earth is bound by an indissoluble bond in heaven. But not always. And still more often, not immediately. In her sacramental, mysterious being the Church surpasses all canonical norms. For that reason a canonical cleavage does not immediately signify mystical impoverishment and desolation.

These are interesting, complex, and contentious matters that require deep study and reflection.

Eric Peterson

30-09-2009, 07:09 PM

Thank you for posting that quote from Florovsky. This, to me, seems to be a good explanation regarding the many ways non-Orthodox have been received into the Church over time, and also, in a way, why there is division of opinion in the Church, given the times and circumstances, of how to receive people. I wonder if anyone has more such quotes, from Orthodox theologians or Fathers.

Jonathan Hayward

30-09-2009, 07:21 PM

I suggest that there already exist sufficient church-dividing issues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism without having to invent a new one.I don't want to comment on the substance of this post, and what I have read of Vatican II so far has cooled my enthusiasm for digging into much more of it. But I would like to comment on something related to this.

Athanasius and other Fathers accuse Arius of saying, "There was when He was not," meaning "There was a time when Christ did not exist."

None of Arius's extant works/fragments contain this claim, and although this is at best informed speculation on my part, if the Arian Christ was something like the Demiourgos through whom the One created all other creatures, then at (least potentially) Arius could have viewed Christ as the one through whom all (other) creatures were made, including time, and although such a Christ could not be called uncreated God and homoousios, not only is it not necessary for Arius to say, "There was when he was not," but it might be out-and-out something Arius would have rejected.

If this is true or at least defensible, this reveals something good about the Fathers: namely, they were not trying as today's scholars would to provide a detached and factually accurate account, but protect the faithful from spiritual poison. It may or may not be accurate that Arius did in fact say, "There was when he was not." But it is in fact true that Arius was a heresiarch and his teaching, in his own extant words as well as what the Fathers allege, is heresy.

And there's something in that. It's not a grain of salt for the Fathers' attitude so much as a grain of salt for us and our ideas of what it means to get things right.

Now let's turn to attitudes here. Another poster has raised a concern that one more change in Roman doctrine constitutes a further obstacle to restored communion, which is not unusual for Orthodoxy, not only in its concern that Rome has continued to add barriers to restored communion, but in something of a "defending the faithful" assumption underneath: truth a little closer to how a St. Athanasius would have understood it than purely a model taken from scholarship. And you respond in an equally Roman manner, downplaying one possible barrier to intercommunion and speaking of "inventing a new one," the implication being that your conversation partner is not exactly offering an Orthodox reaction to one of the latest changes in Roman teaching, but reading things in where a more appropriate reading would not see such a big problem.

I'm still waiting for a Catholic speaker, in talking towards reconciliation, to discuss how Rome can move to doctrines Orthodox would find more acceptable, instead of just chiding us for our insufficiently irenic dealings with Rome.

Christos Jonathan

M.C. Steenberg

30-09-2009, 07:41 PM

Dear Jonathan,

While not disagreeing with what (I think) is your main point, in terms of discerning problems and errors despite what technically may be said by a person or group (a heady old patristic tradition), I do need to pick up just on your example of Arius. You wrote:

Athanasius and other Fathers accuse Arius of saying, "There was when He was not," meaning "There was a time when Christ did not exist."

None of Arius's extant works/fragments contain this claim [...]

[...] not only is it not necessary for Arius to say, "There was when he was not," but it might be out-and-out something Arius would have rejected.

Arius in fact does say this, and explicitly. It is a key argument of the fifth and final section of his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, as well as in his letter to Alexander of Alexandria. Tellingly, it is absent from his later letter to Constantine - where he mentions that the Son 'came into existence from [the Father] before the ages', but does not go on to add what he had formerly made explicit: 'and before he was begotten or created or defined or established, he was not' (Letter to Eusebius); 'the Son, created and begotten before the ages, was not before he was begotten' (Letter to Alexander). Clearly, Nicaea had shown Arius that he could never be reconciled if he persisted in such language (since it had been anthematised in the Creed), and it has now been dropped; though he retains his interpretation of 'begotten' and 'created' as synonyms.

There are a number of things about the common claims of Arius' position for which we can find no evidence in his texts (for example, he would have balked at the statement that there was a time [chronon] when the Son was not, for he is explicit that time is part of the cosmos the Son creates; similarly, we've no evidence that he ever called the Son a poien, a 'thing made', but only a ktisma, a 'creature'); but that he said that before the Son was begotten of the Father, he was not, we can be as certain as we can anything else.

This isn't to disagree with your general point, on discerning error beyond the strict statements of a person; but a rather significant clarification about Arius' thought.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Aidan Kimel

30-09-2009, 09:46 PM

Jonathan, I do not understand your rebuke and do not accept it. I have no interest in engaging in polemics with you. I was responding to what I believe to be a misrepresentation of the ecclesiological teaching of the Catholic Church, with specific reference to the subsistit in phrase in Lumen gentium. If you or others would like to acquire a better and more accurate understanding of what the Catholic Church means when she says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, then I suggest that you read the sources I have cited.

Jonathan Hayward

01-10-2009, 01:20 AM

My last couple of posts have been governed by passion, and I'm sorry for this. I'd like, though, to make a point that I didn't make earlier, and try to make it less abrasively.

I have heard Vatican II mentioned by some conservatives and many liberals, and both claim victory. And before I started reading Vatican II at a Catholic university, I was puzzled.

It's not that I was not used to liberals and conservatives reaching different conclusions, but whenever I read liberals and conservatives on other documents from the magisterium--encyclicals, for instance--they both seemed to be describing the same core text--usually one could get a consistent and largely accurate picture of what the text said without having the official document at hand. But with Vatican II, each found something pretty close to a rubber stamp.

What was mentioned in class, I think in response to my comments after reading some of the writeup, was that deliberate ambiguities were adopted to get otherwise opposed factions to all agree to sign the documents. And what I've read, and what I've heard in conversation about Vatican II with Catholics, entirely matches this. I'm willing, in a lot of contexts, to say of liberal interpretations, "You give Catholic liberals an inch and they take a mile." But the enthusiasm in forging new paths claimed to be "in the spirit of Vatican II" -- the same excesses that prompted Avery Cardinal Dulles to say what was unfortunately a provocatively conservative rejoinder, "The spirit of Vatican II is in the letter," liberals provide less a case of "You give them an inch and they take a mile" than "You give them half a mile and they take the other half too."

As far as I know, I'd like Vatican II to have said what someone like Pope John Paul II would say, but the doubt in the back of my mind is that it doesn't just hint of subjectivism to read Vatican II as decisively endorsing a liberal position; the spectre of subjectivism is also present in saying the council resolves to a conservative reading: the intent of a lot of the council was neither to be decisively conservative nor decisively liberal but to be deliberately ambiguous, instead of resolving its ambiguities to a decisive position.

From how I've seen its reception among Catholics, Vatican II seems slippery to well-read Catholics, and I'm really not sure how Orthodox can read it precisely. Encyclicals, perhaps, present opportunities for the misunderstandings of those not part of Rome, but Orthodox can read encyclicals and walk away with not just confusions about what was said. But, while we may misunderstand "the ecclesiological teaching of the Catholic Church", I don't think we would be good at reading Vatican II in order to clarify misunderstandings and get all on the same page.

Does this make sense? And, for full disclosure, I had a rough time at a Catholic university (http://monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6293&page=2).

Christos Jonathan

Aidan Kimel

01-10-2009, 06:38 PM

Jonathan, you are absolutely correct that the meaning of the subsistit in in Lumen gentium has been vigorously disputed in the Catholic Church over the past forty years. One can find theologians who assert that the subsistit in changed absolutely nothing in the Catholic Church's exclusivist ecclesiological self-understanding. One can find theologians who assert that the subsistit in represented an abandonment of her exclusivist ecclesiological self-understanding. And one can find theologians who argue that the subsistit in represents a modification and nuancing of her exclusivist ecclesiological self-understanding. In my previous comment I referenced the article by Becker. Also see Francis Sullivan's critique of Becker: "Quaestio disputata a response to Karl Becker, S.J., on the meaning of subsistit in (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6404/is_2_67/ai_n29269181/)," as well as his more recent article "The meaning of subsistit in as explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6404/is_1_69/ai_n29413028/)." The debate goes on. How can one know what the Catholic Church teaches about the Church when so many Catholic theologians can't seem to agree what the authoritative documents state?

This may appear to be a specifically Catholic problem, but I would like to suggest that the problem "What does ____ [put in any dogmatic definition, whether conciliar or papal] mean?" has always been with the Church and will always be with the Church, until the return of our Lord. Why do we expect dogmatic definitions to be more perspicuous than the written Word of God? The Jews have a saying: "Two rabbis, three opinions." Every doctrinal synod is followed by controversy. After the Council of Nicaea, everyone debated precisely what the council meant when it declared Jesus Christ to be homoousios with the Father. Athanasius was clear in his own mind what it meant, but clearly not everyone else was. It took decades (centuries?) for the Church to achieve clarity. Texts require interpretation. Conciliar documents are particularly difficult to interpret, because each council participant has his own interpretation of the document to which he has subscribed. How is the Chalcedonian definition to be construed? Do we take the Tome of Leo as our hermeneutical key or the christology of St Cyril?

Returning to the subsistit in, Catholic theologians are presently engaged in the task of historical exegesis of the Vatican documents, which is precisely the right thing for them to be doing. Moreover, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has not been silent on this matter (perhaps to the dismay of people like Sullivan). Thus in 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed some basic ecclesiological questions:

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council ...

It is unlikely that this clarification will end the theological debate, as evidenced by Sullivan's articles above; but given recent magisterial pronouncements (I'm thinking here also of Dominus Iesus), it is becoming increasingly more difficult for Catholic theologians to assert that Vatican II radically changed the Church's traditional self-understanding and embraced some kind of denominationalism or branch theory. Personally, I believe that Lumen gentium's subsistit in should be understood as an important and subtle nuancing of the Catholic Church's exclusivist ecclesiology, a nuancing that opened the way for her ecumenical initiatives since Vatican II.

Ryan

02-10-2009, 04:47 PM

Of course, as observed above, the Catholic Church has, since the third century, and quite probably earlier, also recognized the validity of certain sacramental actions outside of her canonical boundaries. This is not a novelty. It has long-standing patristic support. How one reconciles the all or nothing approach of a legal ecclesiology with the ancient practice of not re-baptizing those who have been baptized in a heretical church is an interesting question.

Dear Fr. Alvin- This chapter (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch5.pdf), from Patrick Barnes' The Non-Orthodox, addresses these basic problems better than I could. To put it briefly, heretics' baptism may have an acceptable form but the sacramental grace emanates always from the one Church and that is what completes these heterodox baptisms and makes them truly valid.

During the 20th century Catholic theologians came to recognize the inadequacies and limits of a simplistic canonical identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ.

Can you see why Orthodox may have a problem with this sentence? In the 20th century (that golden epoch of enlightenment!), they "came to recognize" a new ecclesiology and took it upon themselves to revise their church's teaching and move away from their patrimony. The deference to modern academics and scholars, versus the "simplistic" Fathers, canons, and dogmas of the church is part of a spirit of renovation that Orthodox cannot accept. Of course, there are some renovationists in the Orthodox camp too, but, thank God, we are nowhere near a Vatican II.

I do not know how an Orthodox theologian who has thought deeply about these matters would respond to the above, but I can hardly think that he would consider the subsistit in as itself church-dividing; indeed, I could easily see the phrase being adopted by Orthodoxy to advance its own ecclesiological claims.

Since the subsistit in attitude has been accompanied by declarations that the Nestorians and Monophysites are "true particular churches" (Dominus Iesus) that have valid apostolic succession and eucharist, I must disagree. If we accept what Fr. Georges Florovsky says about canonical boundaries, it still does not resolve the deeper separation of dogmatic boundaries. Some modern theologians have tried to minimize or sweep these away, very simplistically I might add, by pointing at vague "joint statements" between the various religious communities. It is quite a radical leap, from saying that grace may be found outside the Church's strict canonical boundaries, to saying that heretics are "true particular churches."

Owen Jones

02-10-2009, 08:05 PM

There is a more fundamental problem exposed by this thread that is quite typical, which is that Orthodox get sucked into a certain Latinate way of doing theology that is simply not Orthodox. I think Fr. John Romanides puts it quite well:

Both Latin and Protestant theological methods stem from Augustine and are therefore founded on so-called natural revelation, i.e. analogia entis and on so-called supernatural revelation, i.e. analogia fidei. Luther, as an individual, had his suspicions about analigia entis but this never became a fixed Lutheran position.

The first is based on a supposed similarity between God and creation, i.e. that created reality is supposed to be a copy of God's uncreated ideas.

All Orthodox join in the condemnation of those who believe in the reality of such uncreated archetypes during the service of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

The second analogy is based on a supposed similarity between God and Scripture since He supposedly reveals Himself and His actions there.. This is true in principle, but only for those who read and study the Bible having had the same experience of glorification as the prophets and apostles (sent ones) of both the Old and New Testaments. The revolt of some Latin Nominalists against Platonism from time to time was based on a supposed similarity between God and Scriptures only. For the Orthodox Fathers of the Church this is a heresy also, unless the one reading and studying scriptures has reached glorification.

When properly used Scripture leads one to the purification and illumination of the heart and, in God's time, to glorification. But there is nothing in the Scriptures which has a real similarity with the uncreated. This is so because "It is impossible to express God and even more impossible to concieve God" and "there is no similarity between the uncreated and the created." This reality one knows by one's own glorification. Until one arrives there one uses these axioms or postulates of the Fathers as one's basic guide through purification to illumination of the heart. As one is getting accustomed to "unceasing noetic prayer" wthin one's heart, the words of the Bible and of the Fathers begin to become an open book. Then when one arrives at various degees of glorification one is having the exact same experience of the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory as the Old and New Testament prophets and apostles and the saints of the Church.

For the Fathers of the Nine Orthodox Ecumenical Councils, according to Roman Law (and not only the First Seven), one recieves the capacity of reading Scripture and the works of the Fathers only by beginning this process of the cure of the sickness of religion. It is only by the unceasing prayer in one's heart that the short circuit between the heart, which pumps blood, and the heart within the spinal column, which pumps spinal fluid, is repaired. It is by the cure of this short circuit that one becomes rid of "fantasies," and begins to see reality as is and as much as one may support. In this way one ceases seeing reality by means of one's sick imagination.

In the hands of neurologically sick people the Bible becomes a source of "uncontrollable fantasies." And indeed religion is one of the most dangerous. Instead of being a manuel for the cure of the sickness of religion the Bible becomes a book for the propagation of the sickness of religion.

Thus for the Orthodox Fathers of the Church there exists neither analogia entis nor analogia fidei. The basic reason for this is that religion itself is simply a neurobiological sickness. But this also means that there is a neurobiological cure also. This cure re-establishes communion between the heart of the cured one and the uncreated glory and rule of God which saturates creation. Christ, the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory, offers communion with His uncreated Glory and Rule to all, but only those who are participating in this cure by means of the purification and illumination of their hearts are participating in reality. Even those who have been baptized, but are not in the state of either purification or illumination take communion of the body and blood of Christ "unworthily…" and "…eat and drink judgment against themselves."(1 Cor. 11:27-29ff.)

The Bible calls the center of the human personality the 'spirit' of man which the Fathers also call 'noera energia (noetic energy).' Thus we have the difference between 'unceasing noetic payer in the heart,' which keeps the short circuit in question repaired, and 'intellectual prayer' in the brain which at given times occurs in tandem. St. Paul makes this distinction quite clearly: "What should I do then? I will pray with the 'spirit' and I will pray with the 'intellect' also; I will sing psalms with the 'spirit,' but I will sing psalms with the 'intellect' also."(1 Cor 14;15). In the West one finds this tradition explained by St. Patrick, St. John Cassian and Gregory of Tours. However, Gregory misunderstands this tradition as belonging to his realm of miracles. His description is indeed quite humorous. [ 2 ]

Not understanding this reality about the human personality, Protestants, Latins and some so-called Orthodox Bible scholars are unable to read either the Bible or the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils correctly.

Bible Professor Paul Tarazi was thrown out of Balamand University, Lebanon, because he called St. Symeon the New Theologian, one of the great specialists in this tradition, a "jackass" in class. Also Bible Professor Theodore Stylianopoulos has been trying hard to throw aspersion on this tradition by calling it 14th century "Palamism," even though it is generally accepted that this was the practice of such earlier Fathers as St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Macarius of Egypt, St. John Cassian, St. Patrick of Ireland and all writers whose works on the subject are to found in the Philokalia.

This tandem prayer phenomenon cannot be viewed as a metaphysical or a theological problem. Here we have a neurobiological sickness stemming from a short circuit with a physiological cure of unceasing and uninterrupted prayer in the heart which repairs the short circuit. In tandem with is prayer in the heart is the prayer with the brain at fixed times. How can one invent such a neurological phenomenon philosophically or theologically?"

Bible Professor Paul Tarazi and his followers support that Pauline speaking in tongues is that now practiced by many Protestants and Latins. Even some Orthodox have adopted this practice of supposedly speaking in tongues even though it had been the practice of such ancient heretics as the Monanists called the heresy of praying in Xenophonia, in strange sounds, or babbling.

Each historical heresy condemned by the Nine[ 3 ] Roman Ecumenical Councils had been destroying the very foundation of the cure of the human personality from the sickness of religion caused by the fantasies produced by the short circuit in question. From this point of view such paying by babbling is in no way curing the sickness of religion.

So the basic question to be dealt with here is not theological at all. One is dealing with a neurobiological sickness which produces fantasies in the human imagination and distorts one's vision of reality and interpersonal relations. The real problem is that such scholars, like Taraze and Stylianopoulos, are fundamentalists who reject a theorum in advance because not in conformity with their own slogans and visions of reality which they borrow evidently from their professors and their readings.

We mention these two 'biblical' scholars because, like Protestants and Latins, they accept positions in advance because voiced by various members of the society of Biblical scholars and reject the Patristic method of dealing with the Bible which they simply ignore and show no desire to even study it.

The issue of exclusivity is being misunderstood. It has to be understood in the sense in which St. Paul refers to receiving the Eucharist in a state of unworthiness, that will either make you sick or kill you...

Owen Jones

03-10-2009, 03:48 PM

My apologies butthe last line of the last post was mine, not Romanides. I realize that Romanides is a bit quirky at times, and I am not a Romanides fanatic, but I think it is food for thought and insofar as the thread topic is concerned, puts the problem of Latin heterodoxy in its proper perspective. BTW, there is more than a hint of Orthodox triumphalism in Romanides, when he blythly claims that there are 300 million Orthodox, as if to say, hey, we have just as many guys on our side as you have on your side! PRoblem is that the true number is maybe 10 per cent of that. Alas, that has been debated on other threads. BTW, I am also not a Voegelin fanatic. I just think his philosophical insights are helpful in sweeping away some of the detritus of modern philosophy that all too many believers notionally accept. But he also dismissed Palamas' views on the prayer of the heart, very unscientifically imho.

Ryan

03-10-2009, 04:14 PM

Owen, would you mind explicating for us how the Romanides passage applies specifically in this discussion?

Simply reading the passage, I can see that it exemplifies many of the aspects of Romanides' writing (and to a lesser extent that of Met. Hierotheos Vlachos) which rub me the wrong way. In particular, there's an excessive reliance on jargon and pet assertions specific to Romanides- "sickness of religion," "Nine Ecumenical Councils," the excessive blame of Augustine, the comparison of the Church to a psychiatric hospital, the application of the word "heresy" to obscure philosophical attitudes probably never consciously held by anyone, etc. The only thing it's missing is a diatribe about the Franks! I know that Romanides has many worthwhile and interesting things to say, but I think he selects for himself particular catch-phrases and modes of discourse which could just as well be expressed in more traditional and intuitive language.

Jonathan Hayward

03-10-2009, 04:36 PM

This may appear to be a specifically Catholic problem, but I would like to suggest that the problem "What does ____ [put in any dogmatic definition, whether conciliar or papal] mean?" has always been with the Church and will always be with the Church, until the return of our Lord. Why do we expect dogmatic definitions to be more perspicuous than the written Word of God? The Jews have a saying: "Two rabbis, three opinions." Every doctrinal synod is followed by controversy. After the Council of Nicaea, everyone debated precisely what the council meant when it declared Jesus Christ to be homoousios with the Father. Athanasius was clear in his own mind what it meant, but clearly not everyone else was. It took decades (centuries?) for the Church to achieve clarity. Texts require interpretation. Conciliar documents are particularly difficult to interpret, because each council participant has his own interpretation of the document to which he has subscribed. How is the Chalcedonian definition to be construed? Do we take the Tome of Leo as our hermeneutical key or the christology of St Cyril?

Thus spake the fallacy of the excluded middle: I was not in any sense, "expect[ing] dogmatic definitions to more perspicuous than the written Word of God".

Maybe mathematical and computer languages have absolute freedom from ambiguity and do not engender subsequent interpretive debates. But the hope that calculus would transform human discourse "so that there would be no more need for disputes among philosophers than among accountants" (Leibniz) is a pipe dream. And it is true that it is unfair to ask such attributes of Vatican II.

However,

I was not asking that Vatican II be unambiguous and be accepted without any needed debate about what it means.

The last time I read the campaign site for Dave Barry in his lampooning bid to be U.S. president, he claimed, "Dave Barry agrees with you 100% on every issue, even if he has explicitly claimed otherwise." And Vatican II is deliberately like this: deliberate ambiguities to appear to different groups to be amenable to their way of viewing things.

There are difficulties of interpretation, perhaps major difficulties of interpretation, in the Bible and Orthodox councils and saints. But to my knowledge, there has never been an attempt in these sources to have a Vatican II-style deliberate ambiguity that would let different opposing camps see grounds to claim victory, and in debates over Arianism and monothelitism Orthodox saints did not look kindly when deliberately ambiguous documents were proposed to them.

Now, Fr. Kimel, do you contest my assertion that you were falling prey to the fallacy of the excluded middle? My words were not intended to require or imply warrant to require Vatican II to be free from ambiguities or need for interpretation.

Christos Jonathan

Owen Jones

03-10-2009, 05:15 PM

Regarding Romanides' critique, I think it is fairly obvious that he is critiquing the intellectualization of Christian reality, in particular by the Latin distinction between natural and supernatural that dominates Catholic theology to this day. So in Catholic theology, knowing is thinking about things, and the method is analogia entis. In Orthodoxy, it's not about knowing, but seeing things as they really are, which is the province of those who have reached a state of glorification. All of the doctrinal arguments back and forth obscure this underlying difference. This difference comes to a certain degree of clarity in the debate between Palamas and Barlaam, which is treated in a lengthy thread on Monachos. Look, I'm not an expert, nor have I been glorified! But I think it is clear that you have at the core of Orthodoxy the three-fold path which, so far as I know, is pretty much irrelevant in Catholic theological method. It is something that is relegated to personal piety, personal mystics, etc. and is nowhere evident today in the few remaining Catholic monastics. So how can we debate the meaning of theological formulations apart from what Orthodoxy claims is their underlying foundation?

Now, what is the purpose of the three-fold path? Salvation, of course, but what is salvation? And for Romanides it is the cure for what ails us, and not just something that happens when you die. I confess to be quite taken with this whole neuro-biological illness thing, which he claims is the essence of the teaching in the Philokalia, only that terminology is not precisely used there. But it is clear that the Prayer of the Heart is understood in something more than just some rarified spiritual sense. That the purification of the heart is seen as what we would call a medical treatment. When they say heart, it is not a metaphor.

Jonathan Hayward

03-10-2009, 07:37 PM

Now, what is the purpose of the three-fold path? Salvation, of course, but what is salvation? And for Romanides it is the cure for what ails us, and not just something that happens when you die. I confess to be quite taken with this whole neuro-biological illness thing, which he claims is the essence of the teaching in the Philokalia, only that terminology is not precisely used there. But it is clear that the Prayer of the Heart is understood in something more than just some rarified spiritual sense. That the purification of the heart is seen as what we would call a medical treatment. When they say heart, it is not a metaphor.
I am suspending judgment on Romanides as you have explained him; it may sound strange to me, but I don't have an informed opinion and some things about Orthodoxy I cherish sounded a little odd on first hearing.

But I have just finished the Philokalia (first time) and then an abridgment, and what I have read does not strike me as talking about a neuro-biological illness. It encompasses the material but it has a very spirit-centered center of gravity. The heart may be important and may not be a mere metaphor such as in Western usage, but I don't see how I would construct an argument that the Philokalia is about a neuro-biological illness, even admitting that the terminology may not be the clearest in its effect on a Western reader.

Christos Jonathan

Ryan

03-10-2009, 08:14 PM

I don't agree that the discussion here demonstrates an intellectualization of Christian reality. Whether any of us here have attained some degree of glorification, the Church asks us all to believe. Before we can even talk about the three-fold path, there must be submission to the Church and its teaching, and a rejection of what the Church rejects. We may not realize fully or even fractionally the meaning of the dogmas to which we submit, but we nevertheless assent to them, by the grace of the Spirit if by nothing else. To this extent it is possible to meaningfully discuss these problems, even as we are still working toward realizing them in our personal lives- otherwise, apologetics would be useless. Why would St. Gregory Palamas bother debating Barlaam at all, if the truth in question is something you simply either experience or you don't?

M.C. Steenberg

05-10-2009, 01:11 AM

Dear friends,

I have this afternoon moved the seven posts formerly at the end of this thread, to a new thread entitled Patristic views on 'orthodoxy' and the contours of 'heterodoxy' (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6360), which you'll find in this same section of the Community - and which I hope will allow us further dispassionate discussion on the heritage of the Fathers, without the baggage of specifically confessional interests.

At the same time, I am closing this particular thread. There have been some rather aggressive, impassioned and unnecessarily polemical postings in the above discussion, which are not entirely surprising given the specific topic (one that always tends to enflame the passions), but which are nonetheless not the sort of material for which we aim here in the Discussion Community. Our goal is always to seek the mind of the Fathers, to explore and come better to understand the patristic legacy, in a spirit and environment free from polemic, free from aggression, bound up in a spirit of love, critical and engaged discussion, and mutual humility.

Let us strive ever and always for this!

INXC, Dcn Matthew