Orthodox Christian Church of America

[esperanza]

Hi - I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how these two inter-relate (if thats a word)... are they compatible?. I have the OCA website to peruse - which i am.. but am also interested to know if anyone here has some immediate insight. The information I have will take me a while to digest. I guess I'm looking for the cliff notes? To get me started.... Thanks in advance.

[Era Might]

The Churches of the East are valid Apostolic Churches. In other words, their sacerdotal authority descends all the way back to the Apostles. They possess a true Episcopate and true Sacraments.

The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome has been estranged from most of the Eastern Churches for over a millenia. Some of those Churches never severed communion with the Catholic Church, while some (at least in part) have returned. But, as a whole, East and West remain separate, though united by the closest of bonds.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has made reunion with all of the East its number one ecumenical priority. The major obstacle to reunion is the Catholic understanding of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. There are other issues, of course, but most not as thorny as this one.

Edited August 19, 2005 by Era Might

[son_of_angels]

I'd say a major problem with reunion stems from the whole Orthodox attitude. They are so much like continuing Anglicans and Lutherans its scary, "Yeah, we know you're right, yeah we like being on decent relations with you, sure we both agree on every major point in doctrine, AH, but you see, here's the problem, and I'm not sure if you're aware of it, I am supposed to be the one in charge."

It's the same thing with a lot of Eastern Orthodox bishops, a lot like the kind of attitudes Paul was always harping against (not receiving those whom he sent, etc). The only difference is that with a lot of Traditionalist Protestants, the LAITY don't want to submit, whereas in the Eastern churches, Patriarchs are the ones afraid of losing their autonomy. They don't even all obey the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (who would likely be Patriarch of the East in a restored church) half the time.

Well, that's my rant. There won't be any furtherance of ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox until they start seeing themselves as a little less than what they think they are.

[Era Might]

I would also point out that the West is not devoid of similar problems. The East is regarded by some Catholics as a nice little addendum. "True" Catholicism, however, is equated with Latinism. As you note, there's also the issue of collegiality, which John Paul II opened up for discussion in his Encyclical Letter "Ut Unim Sint", recognizing that the Latin form of episcopal governance is not necessarily beneficial.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Era Might

[dspen2005]

did he really imply that? that Latin governing practices are not beneficial??

[Era Might]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Aug 21 2005, 05:16 PM']did he really imply that?  that Latin governing practices are not beneficial??
[right][snapback]693223[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here is what he said in Ut Unim Sint:

[quote]Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator."[/quote]

The key to his vision, of course, is that a proposal "in no way" renounces what is essential to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome.

Highly centralized authority, as it has developed in the Latin tradition, is by no means "essential" to the ministry. In the context of a reunion with the East, it would be out of the question (it already is, to a certain extent; for example, the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canon Law). This is what the Holy Father means by a "new situation". In a reunified East and West, the Bishop of Rome could reclaim his role as the court of final appeal for the East, as the ministry was exercised in Patristic times. In the west, he is Patriarch, so centralized authority makes sense, although a greater degree of collegiality was opened up by the Council.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Era Might

[son_of_angels]

Generally I agree that leadership needs to take a more sacramental form (based on the degrees of orders and authority over dioceses and archdioceses) and therefore Bishops SHOULD take on a more extensive pastoral as opposed to administrative role. This is sometimes impeded by the highly centralized system, as the Bishops often seem to be just middlemen, which they are not.

HOWEVER, while all that I said above is true, it is also true that, as the ability of pope to excercise his sacramental authority has been vastly increased in the 1800 and 1900's, it has also enlarged the scope that the Cardinals take into account when electing him, and has limited the infamous corruption which has always been characteristic of individual Bishops, and increased the religious authority's ability to operate in a highly connected world. Collegiality really doesn't make that much sense in the modern world. Instead a focus on divine hierarchy and away from secular institutes (like Congregations, lay committees, etc.) would be beneficial.

In my opinion reunion must take place with a respect to the traditions and forms of Eastern Churches, but must first DEMAND a certain transparancy and submission to the direct guidance of the Roman pontiff. After all, while Catholicism may not BE Latinism, nonetheless the Throne of Christ's Vicar is in the Latin Church. Union with it must be the highest priority, and maintaining one's local customs far lower on the list. It will be a greater blessing for them to submit, than for them to simply "make a deal" with God's representative. There is no deal-making with God, as a convert myself, I know that.

I also think, however, that fraternity with the Eastern metropolitans and patriarchs is perfectly reasonable. If we can solidify in their minds the apostolic succession of St. Peter in the Western Church, and point to past reunions as precedent, perhaps we can see a growth towards union. Simply giving them all the things they have asked for in the past, and withdrawing all the anathemas we issued in the past is NOT the solution.

Then again, my opinion and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee (maybe).

[Era Might]

[quote]Collegiality really doesn't make that much sense in the modern world. Instead a focus on divine hierarchy and away from secular institutes (like Congregations, lay committees, etc.) would be beneficial.
[/quote]

Well, I would say that collegiality is a perpetual feature of the Episcopacy. It is part of its very nature. But, I agree that those in the West who practically demand that the college should function just like it did in the early Church are being unrealistic. We do not live in the early Church. It was a very different world. The predominant influence of the local Bishop was necessary because local Churches couldn't just call eachother up on the phone or fly to Rome.

You make a good point about the need for both East and West to bend their backs a little. The Church is willing to respect the general autonomy of the East, but the East must not abuse this and reject interventions from the Holy See when she deems it necessary. IOW, there can't just be a lip service to the primacy. It must be a real recognition. Consequently, the Bishop of Rome would not have to lord his authority over his brethren. Rather, he will do what Peter was told to do, and strengthen them in faith.

I do wonder, though, about the idea of decentralizing the Holy See, getting rid of the Curia, etc. I don't know how realistic this is, practically speaking. The curia, for all the grief it gets for being overly beaureaucratic (and it probably is), performs an essential role; (Pope Benedict noted in "The Ratzinger Report" that it's amazing how those small staffs get so much done, in a thankless job no less.)

Papa Ratzi offered some interesting thoughts in "Principles of Catholic Theology":

[quote]"How, then, are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically.

"Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

"The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.

"Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as 'very Christian and orthodox', although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council.

"In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."
[/quote]

Edited August 22, 2005 by Era Might