(YouTube) - His holiness, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Cyril I, at the Feast of Victory of Orthodoxy (20th March 2016) held a speech in which he strongly criticized union with Latins that former Orthodox Christians, now known as "Eastern Catholics" signed with Rome, during Florence Robber Synod crises in 15th century, before the fall of the great and holy city of Constantinople (1453)
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Patriarch Kirill on Mark of Ephesus, false union
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I know feelings run high, but the Patriarch is not endorsing a nuanced view of history in just saying it was fear and pragmatism that led to union at Florence. Nor do I think his intransigence to any kind of union with Rome is well-considered. Whatever happened in the past, the future is not handicapped by problems with prior ideas of union, nor is union with Rome something against the faith. I certainly think people are deluding themselves to think Catholics hold heretical ideas or would impose them on the Orthodox - that is just nonsense based on past misunderstandings (as both Greek and Russian theologians have acknowledged officially, especially vis. issues like the filioque or purgatory). There is no compromise in faith to consider whether we can discuss what primacy really is, how important it is to Orthodox ecclesiology, and how it might be exercised today. John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint is something we should be reviewing together to develop models for how a reunited Church would look. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the rest of the Orthodox world made good progress at Ravenna in seeking a jointly Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology, so that we can both rediscover our theological heritage around concepts of primacy in the church. There is no "Roman imperalism" in the picture, but a deeper appreciation of our shared heritage. Especially when mainstream Orthodox and Catholic theologians mutually acknowledge each others' theology as orthodox, even if we sometimes diverge in "theologoumena" - doctrines to which we are not obligated to subscribe. Principled opposition to any union whatsoever strikes me as an isolationist mentality more than a genuinely Christian attitude toward unfortunate divisions we should always seek to overcome, if at all possible.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree for the most part with the above comment, I think it's still not entirely clear what Rome expects from us. Rome clearly wants to be affirmed by Orthodoxy, and I get that - and forego using the term heresy if you wish - but the Vatican I dogmas are begging for serious reconsideration, a long conversation which Vatican II helped to usher in. But even JPII was uncompromising in the Roman Catholic vision of the papacy practically as it stands as a sin qua non of reunion. Similarly, Ratzinger, as prefect of the CDF, clearly explains the doctrine of "sister churches" to mean that Rome's loss of communion with the Orthodox east is asymmetrical - i.e. it compromises our legitimate ecclesiality and not Rome's (at least as a matter of principle).
DeleteThe relevant question is no longer Roman imperialism vs. Eastern impertinence. It is about the true nature of Christian unity - and this is the great theological ambiguum of our age, as was Christology for the fourth century. What gives me a mild optimism, and at least hope in the Holy Spirit to succeed where we fail, is that this question addresses itself *both* to Rome and to the Orthodox Church. This common struggle has the potential to serve as a means for rapprochement, so long as we continue to engage in the conversation together, such that this becomes seeking the face of the Lord together. Everything that rises must converge.
"Principled opposition to any union whatsoever strikes me as an isolationist mentality more than a genuinely Christian attitude toward unfortunate divisions we should always seek to overcome, if at all possible."
DeleteCorrect, although as much as I am frustrated with both laity and leadership for their attitude on this issue, I would hesitate to judge their intentions as having an anti-Christian attitude. More accurately it seems they are simply ill-informed and have few resources available to them that would allow them to overcome such a mentality.
I agree with Peregrinus that the true nature of Christian unity will be on the level of 4th and 5th-c. Christology for the 21st century.
Wonderful words from the Patriarch. However, would St. Mark of Ephesus have signed the Joint Declaration?
ReplyDeleteTo indulge a bit in your proposed speculation: insofar as the Joint Declaration you refer to is the Ravenna Document regarding primacy, I suspect he would have. As conscientious scholars, both Orthodox and Roman Catholic, have begun to consider - St Mark had a robust concept of ecclesiastical primacy, the Moscow Patriarchate would almost undoubtedly label him a "neopapalist" in our day. St Mark's problems with Florence boiled down to the paucity of common Latin-Greek sources to come to a consensus. He was especially put off by the fact that the Latins would not suffer him to read the acts of the seven ecumenical councils.
DeleteIn a word, St Mark was an unapologetic ecumenist. He refers to the Latins, in so many words during the opening of the council, as separated brethren and worked closely with Nicholas of Cusa in gathering source material for the conciliar debates.
Those who caricature the historical personage of St Mark by portraying him as a rabid and inane anti-unionist partisan do the Holy Church a disservice and slander his holy reputation.
One would do well to read Christiaan Kappes's chapter, "Mark of Ephesus, the Council of Florence, and the Roman Papacy" in Chryssavgis, ed. Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils (SVS Press, 2016); as well as Kappes' "A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439)," in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 59 (2014).
DeleteAlienus,
DeleteI was just about to recommend those when I saw your comment. Most of these works can be read here for free:
http://bcs-us.academia.edu/ChristiaanKappes
Actually referring to the Joint Declaration signed by Patriarch Kyrill and Pope Francis...
DeleteI made that connection after I had already sent the comment. In any case, the Havana Declaration is a far cry from anything like conciliar decrees, which have actual canonical standing. Even so, the UGCC was thrown under the bus. The Joint Declaration was a tactical victory for Moscow.
DeleteWith the exception of complete and total surrender encountered at the conclusion of military battles, as far as I have learned, all negotiations involve concessions on the part of both parties. As an Orthodox Christian I would like to know what, specifically, each side would be expected to concede?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I have yet to hear anyone address how such a union will play out in the pews, to say nothing about the seminaries, the so-called Catholic Universities, high schools, religious orders, and the clergy at large.
The Republican and Conservative elite in this country have, to their utter dismay, discovered the consequences of making decisions in behalf of their constituents without bothering (deigning) to concern themselves with what their constituents felt or how they would respond. The theological elites may very well argue the finer points of the theological and dogmatic issues at hand but may be dismayed when everybody else refuses to go along. All the evidence points to the reality that lay people are drifting away in vast numbers from even believing that "church" is necessary. Rebellion, defiance and individualism (the hallmarks of western culture) are everywhere. Who, I ask you, do you expect to be sitting in your pews if this union were accomplished?
In 2003, Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate, wrote a letter to the Episcopal Church declaring a cessation of dialogue after the elevation of Gene Robinson to the episcopate. Ever in touch with reality, +Hilarion pointed out that all the evidence supported the inescapable conclusion that the ECUSA were moving further and further away from traditional Christianity and that further dialogue was pointless. They, the ECUSA, were not going to change their minds and neither were the Orthodox.
Please, tell me what, in realistic practical terms, you expect to accomplish--after you tell me what you realistically see each side conceding?
Gregory,
Delete"I would like to know what, specifically, each side would be expected to concede?"
This is exactly what ecumenical dialogue at the highest levels is supposed to be working out. Those castigated in the pre-conciliar document are guilty not of having a faulty position within the dialogue, but rather of saying that the dialogue should not even happen...of aborting it before it is born.
"Moreover, I have yet to hear anyone address how such a union will play out in the pews, to say nothing about the seminaries, the so-called Catholic Universities, high schools, religious orders, and the clergy at large."
Much has in fact been written on this topic. I recommend you start with the (now somewhat dated) work of Adam DeVille. I think the key is to start small (like with joint liturgical prayer services such as Akathists or Rosaries) and work our way up as a development parallel with the dialogue.
It sounds like you are demanding that all the details be worked out before the dialogue even begins. Those in favor of the dialogue are asking for a broader conversation that takes suggestions from all sides. Read Pope John Paul II's "Ut Unum Sint." The Roman Catholics are asking Orthodox to advise them on what they need to do to facilitate unity. Orthodox should see this call to action as a duty: "be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (I Peter 3:15).
OK,EO. I followed up on your recommendation and checked out DeVille's book and truly, I'm glad I did. And I was right; yes, Rome is going to have to concede on the papacy but Orthodox are going to have to concede on some stuff too. Well, no. The Orthodox Church calls herself Catholic because she is whole and complete; everything needed for salvation is to be found there. In terms of doctrine, dogma, and tradition she cannot be improved upon either by adding to her or taking away from her. Everything, everything needed for salvation is within her.
DeleteYou write "The Roman Catholics are asking Orthodox to advise them on what they need to do to facilitate unity." Well, the answer for you and them is the same as it is for any regular person asking to be received into the Church: Be thoroughly catechized, renounce any and all former beliefs contrary to Orthodox faith and belief, be baptized and/or chrismated and.....done. You can pick away at the Gordian Knot till the cows come home or you can cut right through it.
For interested Orthodox there are various outlets for this book (Orthodoxy and the Papacy) For my part I paid seven bucks for a seven day pdf download (280 pgs.) from Notre Dame Press. If you want to get the drift of where Dr. DeVille is headed, you can click on the link below and download the introduction for free. There's plenty there to tip you off and save yourself seven bucks.
http://www3.nd.edu/~undpress/excerpts/P01438-ex.pdf
BTW, since I've already revealed myself to be "demanding" would you be willing to suffer the further impertinence of explaining what exactly "Evangelical Orthodoxy" is? I, for instance, am just plain Orthodox and my faith is just plain Orthodoxy. I've never heard of "Evangelical Orthodoxy".
"...Rome is going to have to concede on the papacy but Orthodox are going to have to concede on some stuff too. Well, no. The Orthodox Church calls herself Catholic because she is whole and complete; everything needed for salvation is to be found there. In terms of doctrine, dogma, and tradition she cannot be improved upon either by adding to her or taking away from her."
DeleteYour argument is that ecumenical dialogue must consist of one church converting en masse to the other. This is misguided, because it assumes that the understanding of the Orthodox church on issues of doctrine and ecclesiology has reached a perfection of understanding. In reality it is grounded in perfect truth (Jesus Christ) but will not be perfected in understanding until the parousia.
There are many issues upon which advances in understanding can be made...even issues which have historically been the major ones dividing East and West. See, for example, this document [http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm] which was agreed upon by our hierarchs and theologians along with those of the Roman Catholics in 2003. There are many such advances in understanding which have been made, the most promising of which are with the Oriental Orthodox on the understanding of mono/mia physitism.
"You can pick away at the Gordian Knot till the cows come home or you can cut right through it."
It's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we set up an impossible standard (all Catholics, including old Italian grandmothers, must convert to Orthodoxy and begin celebrating the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom) then we are never going to get anywhere. The point of ecumenical dialogue is to figure out where we are already one, and then work out through a back-and-forth process what areas we can achieve similar unity in the future.
"...would you be willing to suffer the further impertinence of explaining what exactly "Evangelical Orthodoxy" is? I, for instance, am just plain Orthodox and my faith is just plain Orthodoxy. I've never heard of "Evangelical Orthodoxy"."
The importance of being evangelical for an Orthodox Christian cannot be understated, as the core of our faith is in fact Jesus Christ's evangelion, or "good message." Implicit in this understanding of the word evangelion is its mandate to be shared with others, hence the English word "evangelism" and its corollary, "evangelical."
"Your argument is that ecumenical dialogue must consist of one church converting en masse to the other."
DeleteYes. That's pretty much it. When I asked to be received into the Orthodox Church there was no negotiating. I had to renounce any and all beliefs of my former denomination which were not in exact accord with the teachings of the Church. I was received on the Church's terms and Her's only.
"This is misguided, because it assumes that the understanding of the Orthodox church on issues of doctrine and ecclesiology has reached a perfection of understanding."
"Perfection" is your word not mine and it is you who have assumed it. Indeed,it will not be perfected in understanding until the perousia but, until that time it is sufficient, not fairly O.K., for salvation. The Church is whole and complete; She is the Ark of Salvation. Everything, EVERYTHING needed for salvation is within Her.
"It's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we set up an impossible standard (all Catholics, including old Italian grandmothers, must convert to Orthodoxy and begin celebrating the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom) then we are never going to get anywhere. The point of ecumenical dialogue is to figure out where we are already one, and then work out through a back-and-forth process what areas we can achieve similar unity in the future."
It is not an impossible standard. Individuals do it all the time and, indeed, whole parishes have done it. The goal is not "similar unity"--we already have some of that. The only acceptable goal is complete unity.
"The importance of being evangelical for an Orthodox Christian cannot be understated, as the core of our faith is in fact Jesus Christ's evangelion, or "good message." Implicit in this understanding of the word evangelion is its mandate to be shared with others, hence the English word "evangelism" and its corollary, "evangelical.""
Do you mean to say by "our faith" that you are in fact an Orthodox Christian?! Is that your claim?
Actually the core of "my" faith as an Orthodox Christian is "Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."
Look, truth is we'd love to have you and your co-believers with us but frankly the Latin church is a mess and it's not getting any better. You get your bishops, cardinals, theologians, seminaries, colleges, high schools, clergy, religious orders, and laity under control and reading not only from the same page of the same book with the same understanding of what those words mean ("with one heart AND ONE MIND as we Orthodox mean and understand that) and we'll talk. But, from what I can see with each passing day is that your church is in chaos and as an Orthodox layman it would be reckless of me to say or do anything that would encourage you to bring that chaos with you into our church. We have more than enough on our plate as it is. We don't need more.
"the UGCC was thrown under the bus. The Joint Declaration was a tactical victory for Moscow."
ReplyDeleteThe MP, for the first time, agreed that GCCs have the right to exist and carry out their ministry. I see that at a huge step forward for GCs - even though I have no expectation that he will honor these words.
There was a sense of disappointment in the UGCC that the statement did not identify Russia as the aggressor and cause of the conflict in Ukraine; hopes for such a statement were, IMO, unrealistic.
Ecumenism is the greatest heresy of our time. There is no doubt that the Roman Catholics hold heretical and innovative beliefs and doctrines. Any “union” would be catastrophic to the true faith. We need another St Mark of Ephesus to guide us in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteSt Mark of Ephesus pray for us!
"Insofar as the Joint Declaration you refer to is the Ravenna Document regarding primacy, I suspect he would have."
ReplyDeleteMany articles online that refer to the Ravenna Document assume that it is already approved by the Roman Catholic Church. That, in fact, is not the case either.
Do yourselves a favor and go over to the Vatican website and see what the Vatican itself says about the Ravenna Declaration (look at the very top of the page):
"The following is the original English text of the ‘Ravenna Document’ which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
In short, even for the Holy See itself, the Ravenna Declaration cannot be considered as stating the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Ecumenical enthusiasts often forget that the highest authority on doctrine for the Catholic Church is, after the Pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). And the CDF has a history of eventually rejecting or ordering substantial modifications of agreements and joint declarations signed by the various dialogue commissions under the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.
It's a well known fact that the Ravenna Document has no official canonical standing. That is actually irrelevant to the discussion above and was nowhere assumed nor asserted.
DeleteFor both the general topic of ecumenism (for Orthodox) as well as the issues in play at Vatican II (for Orthodox and Roman Catholics), Met. Hierotheos Vlachos and Fr George Metallinos among others recommend this book: Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome's Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church by Fr. Peter Heers et al. Link below. Now on sale as Kindle at $9.99. Very interesting analysis of the thought and people behind Vatican II and its actual effects. I was Roman Catholic, innocently studied Orthodoxy, delighted to discover the riches spiritually of "our Eastern relative" when it was described by Pope John Paul II as "the other lung", and am now gratefully Orthodox, understanding finally the true nature of both. The link
ReplyDeleteLink: http://amzn.com/B0184AVFJ2