Terms of union with Roman Catholics

[88Devin07]

I thought I ought to post this here, as I couldn't find a debate area in OBOB.
I tried to compile some areas that Orthodox feel that the Roman Catholics need to change if union is ever to happen. This isn't a concrete list, nor is it comprehensive.

Repudiate/Reject:
1. Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2. Papal Infallibility
3. Papal Petrine exclusivism (i.e., that only the Pope is Peter’s successor)
4. Development of Doctrine
5. The Filioque
6. Original Sin understood as guilt transmitted via “propagation”
7. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
8. Divine Simplicity
9. Merit and Satisfaction soteriology
10. Purgatory and Indulgences
11. Created grace
12. Painting of religious imagery contrary to the traditional forms. (For veneration and ecclesiastical use)
13. Gregorian Reforms, Vatican I, Vatican II, and almost every Post-Schism Council
14. Adoption of secular music into Liturgical worship.
15. Mandatory clerical celibacy
16. Use of Unleavened Bread
17. Self-Flagellation/Mortification of the Flesh
18. Adoration of images (vs. veneration)
19. Allowing Priests/Bishops who have fallen into fornication to celebrate Liturgy/Mass
20. Sitting during worship
21. Punishment of heretics by temporal/physical means
22. Legalistic theology
23. Use of instruments in worship
24. Faith built on science/reason
25. Satisfaction theory of atonement
26. Transubstantiation
27. Marriage as legal contract
28. Sacraments (vs. Mysteries)
29. Assumption of Mary (vs. Dormition)
30. Use of statues ecclesiastically
31. Kneeling/Prostrating on Sundays

Accept/Restore:
1. The authority of Ecumenical Councils over the Pope
2. The Essence/Energies distinction
3. Reconnect Confirmation/Chrismation back to Baptism rather than delaying it
4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants
5. Pre-Tridentine form(s) of Liturgy/Mass
6. Praying to the East
7. Traditional fasting, including Wed/Fri fasts and all fasting periods
8. Right-to-left Sign of the Cross
9. Canons as guide rather than law
10. Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter

I got some of the list from:
http://saintpaulemmaus.org/files/heterodoxy/02---Outline.pdf
Which is a file that serves as an outline for a podcast series titled "Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy", it's specifically for the program that discusses Orthodoxy & Roman Catholicism. (which is in two parts)
Part 1: Orthodox And Roman Catholic Differences - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - Ancient Faith Radio
Part 2: Orthodox And Roman Catholic Differences -part 2 - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - Ancient Faith Radio

Also, some points come from:
CYCLOPAEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL ... - Google Books
and can be seen at the very bottom of the page.

Lastly, more points are found here:
ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

I know that it seems that many of these points might seem minor, but they all contributed (and still contribute) to the division, and in fact, were denounced at many Orthodox Councils and by many Orthodox Saints.
I also remember someone (a while back) making a comment about how Orthodox laypeople won't have a final say, and yet I would like to bring back memories of the Council of Florence, where it took the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople (under suspicious circumstances and with a document and signature that was highly likely to have been forged), and additional pressure from some (including the Pope) that all but one of the Orthodox Bishops signed onto the union, and hence the capitulation of the Orthodox Catholic Church to the Roman Catholic Church. However, upon their return to their homelands, the laypeople, clergy and monks refused to attend their Churches, and even deposed & exiled them. (then excommunicated them in subsequent councils)
It is important to remember that in Orthodoxy, nothing can happen without the consent of the Church as well as the affirmation of subsequent generations. Even if hundreds of Bishops signed off on the union, and it were rejected by the laypeople, monastics and clergy, then the union would have no effect. (especially as subsequent generations denounce the union) Therefore, if the faith is altered, then it isn't the Orthodox faith, no matter who holds it, as our faith has not changed since the beginning (and cannot change)

I'm mainly interested in whether Roman Catholics think there is any possibility for change in any of the above, or what they think about our disagreements with them. I know the vast majority of Roman Catholics will disagree with it, but I'm mainly interested in why and what might change their minds.

 

[Gwendolyn]

By "faith built on science/reason", are you referring to Scholasticism? You'll have to explain to me why faith bolstered by reason is a bad thing.

 

[88Devin07]

By "faith built on science/reason", are you referring to Scholasticism? You'll have to explain to me why faith bolstered by reason is a bad thing.

Faith that is supported by reason, that is, when you have your faith, and science/reason agree with it, you can use it to reinforce your faith. But even if they don't agree, there is absolutely no need to reconcile the two.

What I'm referring to is building/change faith, doctrine and teachings based on science and reason.

This also means that there can be absolutely no doctrinal development.

A better explanation is this:

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.

St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.

For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.
ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

 

[Etsi]

#20 and #23 our Orthodox Church is guilty of also.

We have pews: sit through parts, stand through parts, kneel through parts...some people prostrate, some of us are either too old or unable to stand due to health (in my case, pregnancy...I WILL faint if I have to stand in one spot for a period of time).

On #23, I know we are an unusual church in that the church was "gifted" an organ upon the death of a member during the time of a more liberal priest. During the summer, we don't use it (and we like NOT using it)...but during the rest of the year we do. I don't think our church knows how to get rid of it without causing offense Ironically, it was gifted by an Orthodox family that is of generational Orthodox, not converts.

 

[88Devin07]

#20 and #23 our Orthodox Church is guilty of also.

We have pews: sit through parts, stand through parts, kneel through parts...some people prostrate, some of us are either too old or unable to stand due to health (in my case, pregnancy...I WILL faint if I have to stand in one spot for a period of time).

On #23, I know we are an unusual church in that the church was "gifted" an organ upon the death of a member during the time of a more liberal priest. During the summer, we don't use it (and we like NOT using it)...but during the rest of the year we do. I don't think our church knows how to get rid of it without causing offense Ironically, it was gifted by an Orthodox family that is of generational Orthodox, not converts.

We aren't really guilty of either those, as we are told to stand during services, and sitting is permitted by οικονομία to those who are physically unable to stand for the whole service.

As for "instruments", organs are a very rare thing in Orthodox Churches, and in fact, their use in worship/liturgy/mass can be (I think) traced to the 600s, and well before the schism. Also, in Orthodox Churches, they are used purely for assisting the choirs. They are not used in compositions, nor for performance or some method of "beautifying" the service. Think of them more like a pitch pipe or a tuning fork. If their use by a Church is more than this, then it isn't an orthodox use of it.

In the West, it's much different, it's normal to sit and kneel during a service (while standing occasionally), as well as the fact that it's very normal to have various instruments involved in a service such as pianos, organs, guitars etc...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

2. Papal Infallibility


Means the Paraclete guides the Church to teach with out error on matters of Faith and Morals. It is the same protection afforded to all the Patriarchs when in unison they agree on the teachings.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

417 LG 12; cf. DV 10.
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council IS 3074.
419 DV 10 § 2.
420 LG 25 § 2.
421 Cf. LG 25.
422 LG 25.

 

[88Devin07]

2. Papal Infallibility


Means the Paraclete guides the Church to teach with out error on matters of Faith and Morals. It is the same protection afforded to all the Patriarchs when in unison they agree on the teachings.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

So, does that mean the Pope is attributed the same "Protection" to all the Patriarchs when in agreement?

(it must be clarified that even if our Bishops/Patriarchs agree on something, if it contradicts Orthodox teaching, it isn't considered Orthodox)

Our contention would be that you are attributing that to one Patriarch, and even in our Church, no one, not even the assembly of Bishops are "infallible" (nor given infallibility, even when they agree), the only infallible element is the Church itself.

 

[Knee V]

#15: I'm not sure how I feel about it. I know that part of the reason it developed was because of a Western practice of celebrating the Mass daily - a priest needed to fast the day before partaking of the Eucharist, which included fasting from sex. Therefore a married priest would never be able to have sex.

I take issue with the following:

From the "Against" List
#11: In my experience, in every conversation that I've seen or been part of that had this as the topic the Catholics had no idea that the RCC taught such a thing. I wonder if the RCC actually does officially teach this.

#16: It wasn't a problem before the schism. From what I understand, East and West developed different practices with regard to this issue (and other issues as well), and ascribed theological meaning to them. Each side makes a theological case for unleavened vs leavened bread. I personally tend to not think it matters all that much.

#20: I really like standing (and my parish only has seats on the sides and in the back for those who really need them), but I don't know how necessary it is that we stand for the entire liturgy.

#26: The Orthodox Church isn't even 100% against this idea. We're just against making it dogma.

#28: On a practical level, what's the real difference? I know that the RCC makes a distinction between what's considered a "sacrament" vs a "sacramental", and I don't know that I agree with that distinction. But is the difference in name really a big deal?

From the "Restore" List
#6: I don't even know why it's a big deal in the East. Yeah, I get it that Christ will return and we'll want to be facing Him when He does. But really? I fail to see why that even matters. When He returns we'll know it and we'll go to be with Him no matter which direction we're facing.

#8: I really don't see this as a big deal. The cross is the cross, IMHO, regardless of the exact way it's formed. In fact, I REALLY like some of the Catholic ways of doing the cross (e.g., they'll use their thumbs and cross their forehead, then their mouth, then their heart, and I think that that's awesome).

#9: I wonder what a Catholic, especially one who is an expert in canon law, would say about that.




I think that I'm right there with you on the rest of them, although I think that there might still be a few that perhaps shouldn't get in the way.

 

[KeenanParkerII]

This . . . is a significant list. I guess we should locate and compile a reciprocal list for the Orthodox members. It's good Catholics and Orthodox can dialogue nevertheless.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, does that mean the Pope is attributed the same "Protection" to all the Patriarchs when in agreement?

(it must be clarified that even if our Bishops/Patriarchs agree on something, if it contradicts Orthodox teaching, it isn't considered Orthodox)

Sounds similiar. The teachings cannot change only develop. That word "develop" can have different meanings to different folks and so it is only prudent to question it. In this case it means that the Church will always teach what it has received previously.

At times the Church falls into heretical teachings where something that has always been taught has been changed in it's meaning and then the Patriarchs have come to agreement and corrected the heresy. Council of Nicea addressed such heretical teachings and the Nicene Creed is introduced. But through it all the teachings that had been passed on through the Patriarchs was upheld.

This "protection" comes from the Paraclete which guides the Church. The Patriarchs share power of the Keys that Peter received. This is an authoritative power... what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven. How could Jesus give this awesome power to man if it were not for the Paraclete that was to come and protect us through those that receive the Power of the Keys through Apostolic Succession.

 

[88Devin07]

#15: I'm not sure how I feel about it. I know that part of the reason it developed was because of a Western practice of celebrating the Mass daily - a priest needed to fast the day before partaking of the Eucharist, which included fasting from sex. Therefore a married priest would never be able to have sex.

I take issue with the following:

From the "Against" List
#11: In my experience, in every conversation that I've seen or been part of that had this as the topic the Catholics had no idea that the RCC taught such a thing. I wonder if the RCC actually does officially teach this.

#16: It wasn't a problem before the schism. From what I understand, East and West developed different practices with regard to this issue (and other issues as well), and ascribed theological meaning to them. Each side makes a theological case for unleavened vs leavened bread. I personally tend to not think it matters all that much.

#20: I really like standing (and my parish only has seats on the sides and in the back for those who really need them), but I don't know how necessary it is that we stand for the entire liturgy.

#26: The Orthodox Church isn't even 100% against this idea. We're just against making it dogma.

#28: On a practical level, what's the real difference? I know that the RCC makes a distinction between what's considered a "sacrament" vs a "sacramental", and I don't know that I agree with that distinction. But is the difference in name really a big deal?

From the "Restore" List
#6: I don't even know why it's a big deal in the East. Yeah, I get it that Christ will return and we'll want to be facing Him when He does. But really? I fail to see why that even matters. When He returns we'll know it and we'll go to be with Him no matter which direction we're facing.

#8: I really don't see this as a big deal. The cross is the cross, IMHO, regardless of the exact way it's formed. In fact, I REALLY like some of the Catholic ways of doing the cross (e.g., they'll use their thumbs and cross their forehead, then their mouth, then their heart, and I think that that's awesome).

#9: I wonder what a Catholic, especially one who is an expert in canon law, would say about that.




I think that I'm right there with you on the rest of them, although I think that there might still be a few that perhaps shouldn't get in the way.

#16: actually was a problem, and was denounced at a few Orthodox councils, even as soon as the 15th Century.

#20: it isn't necessarily, but in the West, it has become normative to sit, and for us, as Orthodox, we believe you must stand during worship (as it's disrespectful to God, as we are mystically in heaven at his throne during Liturgy). There is oikonomia for those who are physically unable to stand, but again, that's the exception rather than the norm. Sitting, and the placement of pews significantly effects how you worship, and can eventually influence your theology.

#26: Actually, the Orthodox Church is against the specific formula, there is absolutely no way you can describe what happens in the Eucharist, and we can only leave it at a mystery, anything else is absolute theory and speculation, and to limit the Eucharist by formulating something like Transubstantiation is demeaning. It might be okay to theorize about it and hold it as a theologumena, but to make it dogma is wrong, and demeans the Eucharist.

#28: The difference is in that Roman Catholic term "sacrament" brings some baggage with it, and there are defined sacraments in the Latin Church. However, in the East, "mystery" is used, and includes not just mysteries like the Eucharist, Baptism, etc... but also many, many other things can be called mysteries, limiting it to just 7 sacraments is unorthodox and frankly, is really putting limits the mysteries of God.

#6: is simply another example of departure from Orthodoxy. We are told to build our Churches facing East, and so when it is possible, we do so. In the West, it no longer matters and Churches are built all the time facing other directions, other than the rising sun. (or read, Son)

#8: again, not really a big deal in itself, but the Roman Catholic Sign of the Cross developed later and apart from the Orthodox sign of the cross (and here I'm referring to the three-fingers, not two) and even a Pope reinforced the Orthodox sign of the cross against the current Roman Catholic sign. A cross is a cross and is good, but again, this must be put into the overall context and not taken on its own.

knee-v: I'm confused, it says your Eastern Orthodox, but you refer to yourself in your post as if you are Roman Catholic?

 

[Gwendolyn]

The "development of doctrine" tends to mean this: that our understanding of an ancient teaching grows and deepens under time, developing into a more complex understanding. It doesn't change, only deepens.

 

[88Devin07]

Sounds similiar. The teachings cannot change only develop. That word "develop" can have different meanings to different folks and so it is only prudent to question it. In this case it means that the Church will always teach what it has received previously.

At times the Church falls into heretical teachings where something that has always been taught has been changed in it's meaning and then the Patriarchs have come to agreement and corrected the heresy. Council of Nicea addressed such heretical teachings and the Nicene Creed is introduced. But through it all the teachings that had been passed on through the Patriarchs was upheld.

This "protection" comes from the Paraclete which guides the Church. The Patriarchs share power of the Keys that Peter received. This is an authoritative power... what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven. How could Jesus give this awesome power to man if it were not for the Paraclete that was to come and protect us through those that receive the Power of the Keys through Apostolic Succession.

I think we can mostly agree on this point, and I would also add that, should union ever occur, the Patriarch of Rome would again be prima inter pares. Much as the role of St. James, the brother of the Lord served during the Council of Jerusalem.
Of course, for us Orthodox, that doesn't mean any Patriarch (no matter who it is) has the ability to make rulings/judgements about or within another Patriarchs jurisdiction.

From my understanding, there were some Popes who had tried to exert authority over other Patriarchs and their brother Bishops, even though they were outside his own jurisdiction (that being Rome & Western Europe).

Now, i don't know the current, official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, but we would stand against that, and say that no Bishop can exert authority over another or another's jurisdiction. (although Bishops can be deposed and are elected by synods/councils of Bishops)

Again, it seems like there isn't much conflict here, but I'm sure we would have to delve deeper into one another's language and meaning when we talk about it.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Also, in Catholic understanding, God is not limited to seven sacraments. The seven that we recognise are merely the sacraments that we know definitively convey God's grace to us. We don't say that God is limited to them, or that there is no other way in which we can have an intimate counter with God. St. Augustine of Hippo, when trying to think about this topic, listed over 300 things he termed 'sacraments'. The things we recognise as sacraments are shared with you, though Orthodox call them 'mysteries'.

Also, I wanted to say that I'm really excited for this thread and I hope to learn a lot more about Orthodoxy.

 

[88Devin07]

The "development of doctrine" tends to mean this: that our understanding of an ancient teaching grows and deepens under time, developing into a more complex understanding. It doesn't change, only deepens.

So then, what about the doctrine of Original Sin, the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary?

We as Orthodox would argue that those are innovations/departures from the ancient faith and that is how we view them, as we read and know the Fathers, and cannot see those doctrines in the Fathers or the Saints.

Do Roman Catholics view doctrines such as those as "developments" in doctrines, and that while the Fathers rightly taught the truth, that we now know more about the truth?

If so, I would reply that to the Orthodox, we cannot know more about the faith than the Fathers or the Saints know, including the Apostles. So while we define and discuss the ancient teachings, we do not believe (nor claim) to know more about those teachings than even the Earliest Christians did.

It would seem our differences in "development of doctrine" seems to be that for the Roman Catholics, it's a "progression" of theology/faith, and that the faith remains the same, but more is known about it and a deeper knowledge is gained.
Whereas the Orthodox "development of doctrine" is simply definition and defense of the faith, and that nothing more can be learned than is already known/taught. (that is, anything we don't know is simply mystery, and we leave it at that)

Does this seem correct? Or am I way off base here? (regarding Roman Catholic theology)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think we can mostly agree on this point, and I would also add that, should union ever occur, the Patriarch of Rome would again be prima inter pares. Much as the role of St. James, the brother of the Lord served during the Council of Jerusalem.
Of course, for us Orthodox, that doesn't mean any Patriarch (no matter who it is) has the ability to make rulings/judgements about or within another Patriarchs jurisdiction.

From my understanding, there were some Popes who had tried to exert authority over other Patriarchs and their brother Bishops, even though they were outside his own jurisdiction (that being Rome & Western Europe).

Now, i don't know the current, official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, but we would stand against that, and say that no Bishop can exert authority over another or another's jurisdiction. (although Bishops can be deposed and are elected by synods/councils of Bishops)

Again, it seems like there isn't much conflict here, but I'm sure we would have to delve deeper into one another's language and meaning when we talk about it.

I enjoy reading old documents of the Church. Writings by John Chrysostom and Irenaeus and Clement of Rome and ect. It is hard to pin point when the Patriarch in Rome claimed an authority that can bind what was loosed or Loose what had been bound but I suspect it has to do with the authority of the Keys and who is the bearer of the Keys. I think Isaiah 22 mentions this role of the bearer of the Keys and how others shared in a similiar authority. This is where I find acceptance to the Patriarch who sits in the Chair of Peter holds a greater authority that allows him to bind what another loosed or loose what another bound.

 

[88Devin07]

I also must admit, that as an Orthodox Christian, I am a poor one. Not to mention I was only introduced 6 years ago (well, just about, since the new year is close) and wasn't baptized until 2 years ago.

I'm trying my best to understand Roman Catholic theology, and trying to represent Orthodox theology and the Orthodox world view. I will try to find links that are from Orthodox sources that can also help in the discussion.

As for the 7 sacraments, so am I reading right, that essentially, the Roman Catholics view the sacraments much as we view the mysteries, that we recognize seven that have a special place, but there are an unlimited number that are a complete mystery (no pun intended) to us?

 

[ProScribe]

This looks like an effort to repair the Great Schism.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I also must admit, that as an Orthodox Christian, I am a poor one. Not to mention I was only introduced 6 years ago (well, just about, since the new year is close) and wasn't baptized until 2 years ago.

I'm trying my best to understand Roman Catholic theology, and trying to represent Orthodox theology and the Orthodox world view. I will try to find links that are from Orthodox sources that can also help in the discussion.

As for the 7 sacraments, so am I reading right, that essentially, the Roman Catholics view the sacraments much as we view the mysteries, that we recognize seven that have a special place, but there are an unlimited number that are a complete mystery (no pun intended) to us?

Would this be a good Orthodox source: Main Page - OrthodoxWiki

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This looks like an effort to repair the Great Schism.

Maybe we should start with the Filioque?