Ecumenical Patriarch To Attend Pope's Inaugural Mass

[Apotheoun]

Catholic tradition doesn't change.It develops rather than being hidebound. Doctrines do not evolve into something alien to themselves--knowledge increases, substance does not change. We can see this in every dogma of the Christian faith including the dogmas the Separated Easterners accept.

Orthodox Christians would refer to what you have talked about in your post as a methodology for innovation. They would reject it as spurious and as contrary to the teaching of the ancient Fathers.

[mortify]

Yes, Orthodox reject doctrinal development as understood in the West as a type of doctrinal evolution.  

 

Again, one groups organic development is the another's innovation. We agree with the Orthodox that doctrines can develop but not evolve. A seed into a tree but not a frog into a bird.

 

 

They see this approach exemplified in the creation of a new liturgy by the Roman Church's hierarchy at the end of the 1960s, which is a thing that no Orthodox Christian would ever accept as legitimate.

 

It's interesting that you associate this with doctrinal evolution. I'm not sure if that connection was intended but as you are aware we don't treat external worship as synonymous with doctrine. To change the form of liturgy is to change doctrine, as far as I understand the Orthodox view point, which is rather interesting since all liturgies regardless of rite are developments (At some point a Priest must have decided to use a golden spoon to deliver the Eucharist in a person's mouth!) The Western liturgy was still developing at a time when most Eastern liturgies had already become solidified, and I'm sure this contributes to our understanding of things.

 

To put it another way, Orthodox Christians do not believe that the faith changes over time, nor that it grows larger in the number of dogmas revealed by Christ.

 

Frank Sheed gives a great summary of the Catholic understanding of development. It's like the experience one first has entering a dark room, at first there is just pitch black but as the eyes become accustomed certain forms begin to get visible, perhaps the edge of a table, a lamp in the background, etc. As our eyes become even more adjusted, most items become even more visible. During this whole process nothing is added in the room, what is there has been there since we first stepped in it is the observer's understanding that has grown. So the point is it's not the doctrines that are developing, but our understanding of them is developing. The deposit of faith is the same as it has been since Christ first revealed, but it's taken thousands of years to understand all the details that our Lord revealed to us. Before words like "Trinity" and "consubustantial" came into being, the doctrines behind them were already believed at least implicitly.

 

For Orthodox Christians there really are only two dogmas, i.e., the Trinity and the Incarnation.

 

St Thomas says the same in his shorter summa, that all doctrines ultimately derive from those two.

 

That said, I sincerely doubt that Roman Catholic apologists will ever convince the Orthodox to accept theological innovations and doctrinal developments, because that approach really is quite simply counter-intuitive to Orthodox sensibilities.

 

Unless it be their own cherished doctrinal developments and theological innovations.

 

Thus, to reiterate what I said in an earlier post, Orthodoxy does not see the idea of a universal bishop within tradition, nor does Orthodoxy contain the notion that one bishop has supremacy over another bishop. In fact the whole notion of supremacy - from an Orthodox perspective - smacks of the Gentile view of governance condemned by Christ the Lord Himself in the Gospel books.

 

As one of my Orthodox friends likes to say in connection with tradition and development: "Tradition is living, not because it is constantly changing, but because it is infused with the Holy Spirit, the giver of Life, who prevents the corruption of tradition from human innovation."

 

Governance by monarchy is wholly Biblical my brother. We can go over scripture and historical events ad nauseum, this is a division that will remain until our Lord reveals which side is right. For now let us rejoice in the fraternity shown between two Leaders of mutual exclusive views.

 

Pope St Leo I, honored in West and East, pray for us!

[mortify]

I wrote a post some years ago at the Byzantine Forum that addresses the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and what it actually means, and here is a portion of that post:

 

Westerners (even some popes) have ". . . misunderstood the nature of the title 'Ecumenical Patriarch' from the very beginning, because [they] thought that it meant 'universal bishop,' but it did not actually mean that to the Church in Constantinople; instead, it only meant that the Patriarch (and in fact any Patriarch) holds a position of honor within the household administration of his own Patriarchal Church, since he acts as a connection between his Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Council (i.e., whenever it is called into session)."

 

What I mean is, "Ecumenical Patriarch" is reserved for the See with the most material glory, as per the Byzantine understanding of a See's pre-eminence. So being that Constantinople no longer exists and only a handful of Christians remain, that the Patriarch there still bear such a title is rather strange to say the least! If it is to be restricted to the Greek Orthodox then Moscow should bear that title.

 

Anyway, just an aside, please carry on!

[Apotheoun]

. . . 

 

No man may by right claim to belong to the Church if he's separated from the visible means of her unity--the Papacy.

This is a talking point but it is not an argument, and I know plenty of Orthodox Christians who would present historical and theological reasons for why they reject the modern Roman Catholic notion of the papacy. 

 

Perhaps because I have been Roman Catholic and am now Eastern Catholic I can see both sides of the issue. Sadly very few Roman Catholics know much at all about Eastern Orthodoxy, and I can tell you from experience, that arguments that have some success with Protestants will have no real impact on Eastern Orthodox. You must know your opponent if you are going to really engage him in a debate.

[Evangetholic]

Tradition is alive because it is infused with the Holy Spirit, and so it does not need to evolve through the creation of new dogmas in order to be alive. As far as the magisterium is concerned, Eastern Orthodoxy does not recognize that late medieval Western notion.  Orthodoxy teaches instead that every man, and not just the bishops, is charged with guarding holy tradition. To put it another way, the Western notion of a Church Teaching and a Church Taught is foreign to Orthodoxy, which perhaps why you have laymen (like St. Maximos) was willing (and able) to call bishops and patriarchs to task when they failed to teach the truth.

 

Catholicism does not assert that dogma evolves.

 

The 'idea" of the Magisterium is not Medieval--it is what is implied by "God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

 

The East is correct that all Christians are responsible for guarding and transmitting "orthodoxy." And also we all might rise up when needed and serve as "Balaam's ass" in rebuke of the Church's divinely instituted hierarchy when necessary--this is a function of the common priesthood.

[Apotheoun]

What I mean is, "Ecumenical Patriarch" is reserved for the See with the most material glory, as per the Byzantine understanding of a See's pre-eminence. So being that Constantinople no longer exists and only a handful of Christians remain, that the Patriarch there still bear such a title is rather strange to say the least! If it is to be restricted to the Greek Orthodox then Moscow should bear that title.

 

Anyway, just an aside, please carry on!

Technically it is not reserved to the see of Constantinople. By custom it is used to indicate that the Patriarch of that see has primacy within the Orthodox communion, but it is not a doctrinal title.

 

Just as the title "pope" is not a doctrinal title for the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

Technically it is not reserved to the see of Constantinople. By custom it is used to indicate that the Patriarch of that see has primacy within the Orthodox communion, but it is not a doctrinal title.

 

Just as the title "pope" is not a doctrinal title for the Patriarch of Alexandria.

 

It's obviously a custom but the point is the origin was based on a principle that no longer applies to the Patriarch of Constantinople. I would say Moscow has primarcy over Constaninople nowadays

[Apotheoun]

Again, one groups organic development is the another's innovation. We agree with the Orthodox that doctrines can develop but not evolve. A seed into a tree but not a frog into a bird.

Actually, you and the Orthodox are not in agreement, because the Orthodox see doctrine as immutable experiences of God, which are not open to logical development. Never confuse the words used to speak about a mystery with the mystery itself, which by its nature is unchanging and unchangeable.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

It's obviously a custom but the point is the origin was based on a principle that no longer applies to the Patriarch of Constantinople. I would say Moscow has primarcy over Constaninople nowadays

Since Orthodox believe that primacy is inherent to episcopacy, it would be possible for the Orthodox Churches to choose a different see to be the primatial see. But for whatever reason they have not chosen to do that yet. Who knows what the future holds.

[T-fish]

Thanks for sharing this article!

I like Orthodox. Bring on the incense!

The RC Church does not use as much incense as it used to.

 

This is the Greek version I use for daily readings:

http://www.goarch.org/chapel

 

Pax humana!

 

 

[Evangetholic]

This is a talking point but it is not an argument, and I know plenty of Orthodox Christians who would present historical and theological reasons for why they reject the modern Roman Catholic notion of the papacy. 

 

Perhaps because I have been Roman Catholic and am now Eastern Catholic I can see both sides of the issue. Sadly very few Roman Catholics know much at all about Eastern Orthodoxy, and I can tell you from experience, that arguments that have some success with Protestants will have no real impact on Eastern Orthodox. You must know your opponent if you are going to really engage him in a debate.

 

I am aware of what the Papacy looks like to the East.  And of what it looked like to the Early Church. I'm also aware that the entire east has fallen into heresy and schism at various points. Rome, the visible sign of unity, the seat of authority has not.

 

Antiquarianism, obduracy in schism, Caesaropapism, and utterly non-evangelical ethnocentrism does not actually seem to me, with my silly Papalist assumptions, to be a very impressive set of arguments against the Holy Father.

[MIKolbe]

To me, this means hope.

 

talking/defending/fighting/arguing/debating about the bones of contention between west and east will not have the substance to affect a truer communion lest the two, figuratively speaking, come together and sit down.  

 

I am inspired by the courage, humility, and strength of the Patriarch.

 

I hope what His All Holiness is doing will be reciprocated in the same love, honor, and respect.  

 

I hope pride, envy, and sloth are overcome with faith, hope, and love.  

 

but then, i'm just a hippie.

[Evangetholic]

And once again doctrinal development can be shown in even the doctrines the east accepts.

[Apotheoun]

To me, this means hope.

 

talking/defending/fighting/arguing/debating about the bones of contention between west and east will not have the substance to affect a truer communion lest the two, figuratively speaking, come together and sit down.  

 

I am inspired by the courage, humility, and strength of the Patriarch.

 

I hope what His All Holiness is doing will be reciprocated in the same love, honor, and respect.  

 

I hope pride, envy, and sloth are overcome with faith, hope, and love.  

 

but then, i'm just a hippie.

I think it is a good thing too, and I also think that increased cooperation between the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches in defense of morality is a good thing. The Russian Orthodox Church in particular has been proposing an alliance of Apostolic Churches in defense of marriage and the right to life (i.e., stopping abortion and euthanasia). I hope that it happens. 

[Apotheoun]

And once again doctrinal development can be shown in even the doctrines the east accepts.

I know you believe that, but Eastern Christians do not.

 

Doctrines are not logical axioms open to development; instead, they are revealed participations in the divine life.