Those who depart Catholicism for Orthodoxy are understandably enamored by its embrace of beauty and tradition. Some eventually figure out the grass is not greener in Orthodoxy, but returning to Catholicism requires a healthy dose of humility - to admit one was wrong. It all begs the question - why does someone like Mr. Davis not seek out a good Eastern Catholic parish? Most Catholics are oblivious about Eastern options. That might require moving (I have been in Byzantine parishes in five different states and understand the quality of worship is uneven), but it keeps one Catholic with all the beauty and tradition of Orthodoxy.
I agree. In fact, I see the Eastern Catholics as particularly important because (a) Rome lets them govern themselves, granting them the kind of relative autonomy that Orthodox ecclesiology prizes, and (b) they do not embody the all too frequent unhealthy ultramontanism of Latins, but have a more "first-millennium" attitude about the Pope of Rome. Yet they do acknowledge his power to define dogmas or condemn heresies, and his governing primacy.
But just as Our Lord meant what He said in John chapter 6, and He has power to fulfill it, so too He meant what He said in Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21, and He has power to fulfill it — not only for Peter, who would soon die and receive his reward, but for every bishop who succeeds Peter in the Apostolic Chair of Rome, the *first* among all the ancient Sees.
It was in Antioch that the disciples were called Christians for the first time.
C.f. Acts of the Apostles
And St. Peter had his See in Antioch before he went to Rome.
However, the primacy of Rome is not just a primacy of honor, as the Orthodox believe.
"The Protestants rejected the papacy, and in due course, rejected the Real Presence and the prerogatives of Our Lady; some even came to reject the Incarnation. The conceptual path from Lutheranism to Calvinism to Unitarianism to atheism is not difficult to trace." You go on to describe how despite the rejection of the papacy, etc., the Orthodox have not gone the way of erstwhile Protestants. I think it is precisely because the Orthodox DO reverence our common Mother, Mary. (I have something coming out soon at Catholic Exchange on that issue.)
Well, it certainly doesn't hurt to venerate the Holy Theotokos, because she preserves the Mystery of the Incarnation and therefore of the Eucharist. However, my argument here is that the Orthodox hold contradictory premises: they accept the Church as an extension of the Incarnation of Christ - hence, the Mystical Body - but they do not acknowledge that the body is in every way an analogy to the actual Body of Christ, with not only visible members but also a visible head. It is not only an autocephalous eccelsiology but an acephalous one.
I get it. And I agree. Your bodily analogy is an apt one I hadn't fully considered before. "Acephalous." I will half-jokingly say that a dominant theme of Orthodox theology is apophatic--not just that we can't define what God is, but that the Orthodox might not be able to say what they are, but they are quick to say what they are not, which is Catholic and in union with the Pope. (My point about the Theotokos is more about finding a road back from schism.)
Amen. BTW, Michael Warren Davis has just told me that he has penned a response, which will go up next week. It will be called "An Orthodox Case for the Papacy." That's got me on the edge of my seat!
Bravo! This is an issue I have written much about, but having (somewhat) learned my lesson about commenting, I only note this: How appropriate for this irenic piece to appear on the day we commemorate St. John of Damascus, Doctor of the Church.
The irenic tone is much appreciated… shouldn’t it always be that way?
My question is, how does all this fit with Articles 16 and 19 of the Chieti document, that is, the agreed upon statement from Vatican appointed Catholic scholar-theologians and Orthodox theologians?
16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way.
Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The plain reading of these agreed upon statements is that the primacy of Rome was always understood differently by the West and the East…. and that “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”
These statements seem to me to belie the often stated notion that in the first millennium the East shared Rome’s concept of its own primacy, meaning that while the East recognized Roman primacy, it did not understand it as supremacy since they were not under the canonical authority of Rome but rather under their own bishops, etc.
This has always been my understanding from a holistic reading of church history away from the ‘quote mining’ techniques often used to argue the issue. I was surprised (and pleased) that Catholic theologians at the highest level acknowledge it.
Now I am sure there is much more of a back story to these agreements as well as ‘spin’ that can be put on them, explaining away with this or that nuance, and saying that the plain reading of the text is not what it seems. But if these statements stand, it seems to me that dialogue needs to continue on a different course.
I would point out that primacy, if it is to mean anything, has to involve some aspect of finality: not that the pope dictates to the Eastern bishops who they should appoint, how they should govern day to day, or what their own procedures should be, but rather, that a court of final appeal really must be that, and a dogmatic determination must be that. Otherwise, the primacy is nothing more than a fancy coat or hat, an honorific label.
Adrian Fortescue gathers some truly remarkable testimonies from the Eastern first millennium in his book "The Orthodox Eastern Church." Even granting as wide a difference in canonical, liturgical, and theological traditions as one wishes, the testimonies point to a veneration for the successors of Peter that is, if anything, over the top.
I read Fortescue decades ago. It was clear, to me at least, that he didn’t care much for the Eastern Church… I should look at it again and see if I still find that animus…
Yes, I believe the issue ultimately revolves around the definition of primacy, how it was understood then and how it is understood today. For what it’s worth it seems to me that ‘canonical authority’ speaks to more than episcopal appointments and managerial functions but one would need more information to better interpret the authors’ intentions.
The first paragraph of this reply brings to mind something I've contemplated regarding a theoretical East-West reunion: that the Orthodox would need to place their trust in Rome's ability to respect the limits of its authority over them.
Yet what has Rome demonstrated through the way it treats the bishops and rites already under its purview? It abuses its authority through overreach, selective enforcement, bureaucratization, and increased centralization of power to itself. Comparative respect for Eastern rites notwithstanding, it's not irrational to be wary of your estranged father who mistreats your siblings who live at home.
Barring divine intervention, we can't expect true East-West union until the West fixes its own dysfunctional relationship with authority. How can we bring our Eastern brethren to a proper view of the Church's hierarchy while we're catastrophically failing to model it ourselves?
Until we do that, we're stuck arguing Petrine primacy *and* the complexities of Recognize & Resist when we speak to Orthodox believers. "Yes, the Pope has authority, though he frequently and egregiously abuses it, so here's how to spiritually and psychologically defend yourself should you submit to him." Individuals are sometimes won over by this, but it's not a promising basis for widescale unification.
I like to look at a blog of the Spectator called "Holy Smoke." Recent one had a Ukrainian religious fellow explaining all the intricacies of why there were two (or is it three) separate Ukrainian Orthodox Churches -- plus that one in Moscow. The interviewer also had a man-in-the-street session with a young woman. Asked if it was difficult during wartime to make one's way to the proper church, she said: people go to the closest one. After all, the words are all the same. In other words, the people go to church to pray, while the bishops duke it out with each other.
Those who depart Catholicism for Orthodoxy are understandably enamored by its embrace of beauty and tradition. Some eventually figure out the grass is not greener in Orthodoxy, but returning to Catholicism requires a healthy dose of humility - to admit one was wrong. It all begs the question - why does someone like Mr. Davis not seek out a good Eastern Catholic parish? Most Catholics are oblivious about Eastern options. That might require moving (I have been in Byzantine parishes in five different states and understand the quality of worship is uneven), but it keeps one Catholic with all the beauty and tradition of Orthodoxy.
I agree. In fact, I see the Eastern Catholics as particularly important because (a) Rome lets them govern themselves, granting them the kind of relative autonomy that Orthodox ecclesiology prizes, and (b) they do not embody the all too frequent unhealthy ultramontanism of Latins, but have a more "first-millennium" attitude about the Pope of Rome. Yet they do acknowledge his power to define dogmas or condemn heresies, and his governing primacy.
Great article, Dr. K. One observation:
The Orthodox would point out here:
But just as Our Lord meant what He said in John chapter 6, and He has power to fulfill it, so too He meant what He said in Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21, and He has power to fulfill it — not only for Peter, who would soon die and receive his reward, but for every bishop who succeeds Peter in the Apostolic Chair of Rome, the *first* among all the ancient Sees.
It was in Antioch that the disciples were called Christians for the first time.
C.f. Acts of the Apostles
And St. Peter had his See in Antioch before he went to Rome.
However, the primacy of Rome is not just a primacy of honor, as the Orthodox believe.
Again, thank you very much.
"The Protestants rejected the papacy, and in due course, rejected the Real Presence and the prerogatives of Our Lady; some even came to reject the Incarnation. The conceptual path from Lutheranism to Calvinism to Unitarianism to atheism is not difficult to trace." You go on to describe how despite the rejection of the papacy, etc., the Orthodox have not gone the way of erstwhile Protestants. I think it is precisely because the Orthodox DO reverence our common Mother, Mary. (I have something coming out soon at Catholic Exchange on that issue.)
Well, it certainly doesn't hurt to venerate the Holy Theotokos, because she preserves the Mystery of the Incarnation and therefore of the Eucharist. However, my argument here is that the Orthodox hold contradictory premises: they accept the Church as an extension of the Incarnation of Christ - hence, the Mystical Body - but they do not acknowledge that the body is in every way an analogy to the actual Body of Christ, with not only visible members but also a visible head. It is not only an autocephalous eccelsiology but an acephalous one.
I get it. And I agree. Your bodily analogy is an apt one I hadn't fully considered before. "Acephalous." I will half-jokingly say that a dominant theme of Orthodox theology is apophatic--not just that we can't define what God is, but that the Orthodox might not be able to say what they are, but they are quick to say what they are not, which is Catholic and in union with the Pope. (My point about the Theotokos is more about finding a road back from schism.)
Amen. BTW, Michael Warren Davis has just told me that he has penned a response, which will go up next week. It will be called "An Orthodox Case for the Papacy." That's got me on the edge of my seat!
Bravo! This is an issue I have written much about, but having (somewhat) learned my lesson about commenting, I only note this: How appropriate for this irenic piece to appear on the day we commemorate St. John of Damascus, Doctor of the Church.
The irenic tone is much appreciated… shouldn’t it always be that way?
My question is, how does all this fit with Articles 16 and 19 of the Chieti document, that is, the agreed upon statement from Vatican appointed Catholic scholar-theologians and Orthodox theologians?
To recap:
https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html
16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way.
Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The plain reading of these agreed upon statements is that the primacy of Rome was always understood differently by the West and the East…. and that “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”
These statements seem to me to belie the often stated notion that in the first millennium the East shared Rome’s concept of its own primacy, meaning that while the East recognized Roman primacy, it did not understand it as supremacy since they were not under the canonical authority of Rome but rather under their own bishops, etc.
This has always been my understanding from a holistic reading of church history away from the ‘quote mining’ techniques often used to argue the issue. I was surprised (and pleased) that Catholic theologians at the highest level acknowledge it.
Now I am sure there is much more of a back story to these agreements as well as ‘spin’ that can be put on them, explaining away with this or that nuance, and saying that the plain reading of the text is not what it seems. But if these statements stand, it seems to me that dialogue needs to continue on a different course.
Thank you very much for your comments.
I would point out that primacy, if it is to mean anything, has to involve some aspect of finality: not that the pope dictates to the Eastern bishops who they should appoint, how they should govern day to day, or what their own procedures should be, but rather, that a court of final appeal really must be that, and a dogmatic determination must be that. Otherwise, the primacy is nothing more than a fancy coat or hat, an honorific label.
Adrian Fortescue gathers some truly remarkable testimonies from the Eastern first millennium in his book "The Orthodox Eastern Church." Even granting as wide a difference in canonical, liturgical, and theological traditions as one wishes, the testimonies point to a veneration for the successors of Peter that is, if anything, over the top.
https://osjustipress.com/products/the-orthodox-eastern-church
I read Fortescue decades ago. It was clear, to me at least, that he didn’t care much for the Eastern Church… I should look at it again and see if I still find that animus…
Yes, I believe the issue ultimately revolves around the definition of primacy, how it was understood then and how it is understood today. For what it’s worth it seems to me that ‘canonical authority’ speaks to more than episcopal appointments and managerial functions but one would need more information to better interpret the authors’ intentions.
It's true that Fortescue is curmudgeonly at times, but he's also that way about the Latin West, so fair play!
A good book in terms of recent (and placid) scholarship is Erick Ybarra's "The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox."
https://www.amazon.com/Papacy-Revisiting-Between-Catholics-Orthodox/dp/1645852210
The first paragraph of this reply brings to mind something I've contemplated regarding a theoretical East-West reunion: that the Orthodox would need to place their trust in Rome's ability to respect the limits of its authority over them.
Yet what has Rome demonstrated through the way it treats the bishops and rites already under its purview? It abuses its authority through overreach, selective enforcement, bureaucratization, and increased centralization of power to itself. Comparative respect for Eastern rites notwithstanding, it's not irrational to be wary of your estranged father who mistreats your siblings who live at home.
Barring divine intervention, we can't expect true East-West union until the West fixes its own dysfunctional relationship with authority. How can we bring our Eastern brethren to a proper view of the Church's hierarchy while we're catastrophically failing to model it ourselves?
Until we do that, we're stuck arguing Petrine primacy *and* the complexities of Recognize & Resist when we speak to Orthodox believers. "Yes, the Pope has authority, though he frequently and egregiously abuses it, so here's how to spiritually and psychologically defend yourself should you submit to him." Individuals are sometimes won over by this, but it's not a promising basis for widescale unification.
I so agree with your comments!
I like to look at a blog of the Spectator called "Holy Smoke." Recent one had a Ukrainian religious fellow explaining all the intricacies of why there were two (or is it three) separate Ukrainian Orthodox Churches -- plus that one in Moscow. The interviewer also had a man-in-the-street session with a young woman. Asked if it was difficult during wartime to make one's way to the proper church, she said: people go to the closest one. After all, the words are all the same. In other words, the people go to church to pray, while the bishops duke it out with each other.