On Sunday I attended Holy Trinity Orthodox church near Parma. I had visited the church last month, when I spotted its five onion domes on my way back home from Cleveland. Finding the side door open, I had marveled at the beauty of its iconographic murals, which cover the walls and ceiling. I resolved to return and experience worship in such a temple after Orthodox Pascha, which was the 27th (our calendars are way off this year).
While the main celebration of the Resurrection was Saturday night, there was, curiously, a vespers service Sunday morning. I arrived early, again admiring the exquisite beauty of the place and lighting some beeswax candles before the icons in the back of the church, which began to fill with people, who greeted one another with “Christ is risen!”, and the response “Indeed He is risen!” The altar was open to view, the Royal Doors and the Deacon’s Doors, usually closed except during liturgy, were wide open, as they will be during all of Bright Week. A white-bearded and fully vested priest entered the sanctuary and began incensing the altar, then the icons on the iconostasis, then the congregation. A very fine choir began singing, in English, the sweet Slavic liturgical tones, and the music seemed to carry me like a soulful river. It was overwhelming; the visual beauty of the icons of Christ, His Holy Mother, and the angels and saints filling the eyes, the ears soaking in the glorious polyphony, the scent of incense filling the church. It was if all the senses were gathered into a single focus, suffused in the Beauty that is God.
The priest, Fr. Vladimir, began his homily by noting that all earthly beauty is transitory, that the flowers blooming just outside the church will fade, that autumn’s colors fade to death, that all is passing. But Christ’s Resurrection, which he called the “miracle of miracles” reveals to us the possibility of Eternal Beauty. He then walked over to the icon of the Holy Trinity on the iconostasis, a rendering of St Andrei Rublev’s famous composition. With real theological depth he taught from the icon, explaining how it sketches the inner life of the Trinity, contemplating the incarnation and the passion to come. He then moved over to the mural of the Resurrection next to the iconostasis and continued teaching from this icon.
As an iconophile, I greatly appreciated this catechesis from two of the great icons in the canon.
One of the translations of the word “Orthodoxy” is “right glory”, and this is as fitting a term for what I witnessed Sunday morning as any. I couldn’t help but compare this with the nuptial Mass I had attended the week before in Virginia, when I witnessed my old pal Kirk Kramer’s wedding. It was done in the old Latin rite, and in contrast to the sensory exuberance of the Byzantine rite, the Latin Mass was a study in restraint, with long silences and a sense of stillness pervading. If the Orthodox liturgy is ecstatic, the traditional Roman rite is contemplative. It is a wonder that two such different and beautiful approaches to worship grew from a single source.
As it was Sunday, I knew that attending an Orthodox vespers service did not meet my “Sunday obligation”. Byzantine Catholics are not “bound by sin” to attend Sunday liturgy (though they are expected to), as they are not bound by sin to abstain from meat on Fridays or fast on fast days (though they are expected to). As I have never officially requested a change of rite, I am still technically a Latin Catholic. And while I am convinced that God was pleased with my worship at Holy Trinity, there is enough of the Latin legalist lurking in my soul that I thought I’d better cover all the bases. Besides, I hadn’t received the Eucharist.
There are only two evening Masses offered on Sundays in our area. I went to the earlier one, at St. Michael’s in Canton, which is known locally as “the boat”: it is a huge steel, brick and glass building meant to suggest Noah’s Ark. While “the Church as Ark” image has a long and venerable theological pedigree, the translation of this notion into architecture is most unfortunate. It is an odd and hulking structure.
The interior of the building is a bright and spacious oval shaped auditorium. A thin band of abstract stained glass panels encircles the space, and the only other adornment is a modern-looking crucifix off to the side of the altar, and further off, a matching statue of Mary and the Christ child.
The music was supplied by a band consisting of bass, drums, electric guitar and keyboards, played by middlish guys in casual attire. They were not the stereotype, folks who have learned 5 chords on a cheap guitar and go into the liturgical business; they were actually quite skillful musicians. The music for the most part was soft rock, except the Gloria, which had a boogie woogie beat, and the recessional, which sounded like “Hang on Sloopy”.
The young priest did not stray from the rubrics, and in his (too long) homily gave every indication of believing in the Catholic Faith as it is traditionally understood. Not so the composers of the songs and the intercessions, who refused to use masculine pronouns in reference to God, which leads to some awkward expressions: “That we as God’s people may work to build God’s kingdom by proclaiming God’s word; let us pray to the Lord”. Too, the intercessions included buzzwords like “diversity” and “inclusive”.
As I left “the boat”, humming “Hang on, Sloopy” I couldn’t help but contrast this liturgical experience with both the Orthodox vespers and the traditional Latin Mass. Both the Byzantine and the Roman liturgies were timeless: except for the electric light and the microphones, I could have been worshipping a hundred years ago, or a thousand. The rock Mass could not have taken place fifty years ago, and fifty years from now it will be hopelessly outdated. I can only assume that those responsible for such liturgies mean well, but it is a wrongheaded endeavor: the Divine Liturgy ought to escort us into Eternity, into the Kingdom, into Fr. Vladimir’s “miracle of miracles”. Whether in the restraint of the Roman rite or the holy excess of Byzantine worship the mystical reality of the Church is tangible. In the rock Mass only the timebound human is evident, and it requires real faith to affirm that anything greater is present.
Experiencing such a contrast did nothing to help my confusion about the recent “clarification” by Rome that the Church “subsists” only in the Catholic Church. St. Michael’s rock Mass, according to this logic, participates in the subsisting Church, but Holy Trinity’s worship, where heaven is made manifest, does not.
I grant that the Orthodox Churches, lacking juridical unity with the See of Peter, are organizationally flawed. But the Church is primarily a mystical reality, and in that worshipping body of the baptized Christians of Holy Trinity church, where the Word of God is proclaimed and the sacred mysteries- the sacraments- are celebrated, in that place saturated by Beauty, the Church was gloriously revealed.
–Daniel Nichols
That sounds like a great experience in the Byzantine church, but not one I’d risk for myself, especially if to be promptly followed by a folk-rock Mass. We don’t have any Orthodox churches in striking distance, but I have been sorely tempted to go to the high church Anglicans on Corpus Christi (the feast has been abolished by our Bps). But I know that, for me, it would be a temptation, like having lunch with a man I fancied, if I were married. I’ve finally given up on our borderline pathological OP chaplain and am attending an RC church with folk-rock hynody. I can only go because there is nothing else, and I have to go. One can only assume that this is the cross one is called to bear, and one may assume, if feeling sufficiently lugubrious, that if borne in the right spirit it may stand for some of one’s purgatorial purge.
Same here as regards the high church Anglicans. I don’t think we have any around here, though.
Francesca & Maclin:
What about Anglican Use parishes in your respective dioceses? Many have sprung up since the Bishop Robinson kerfuffle.
Francesca-
Wow, that is so ironic. We Americans tend to think ourselves in a cultural/religious wasteland compared to the Old Country, and even Britain, and here you are, with little option but the folk rock mass. And I, in northern Ohio, in the hinterlands of the U S of A, have my pick of not only a very fine Latin Mass, but dozens of Orthodox and Byzantiine Catholic liturgies.
I would counsel you to avoid the Anglican liturgies, by the way. However lovely the worship, they are not Churches in the sense that the Orthodox are, as even the confused thinking of the magisterium grants…
And you can’t imagine how it pains me to express the thought that I find the magisterium’s reasoning confused.
And Mac- while I would not advise you to frequent it, as it may be a near occasion of sin, didn’t I see some sort of traditionalist Anglican parish on the Bay, when I was down there for Ellen’s wedding?
Yes, sort of: I forget what they call themselves, but I think it has “Protestant” in it, and their particular Golden Age appears to be the high-water mark of low-church Anglicanism. The building, while attractive from the outside, does not even have an altar. ’nuff said, I reckon.
Christopher, last time I checked there were still very, very few Anglican Use parishes in the country. Definitely none in this area.
Dan – it’s because I live in Aberdeen, which is around 300 miles north of Edinburgh. If you live in Edinburgh, or Birmingham, or Oxford, it’s so different as to be unrecognizable.
Aberdeen only has two Catholic masses on Sundays? I was under the impression that it was a good size city. No?
I can’t drive. There are some other churches, but I’d have to take three buses. I may go there, if my tolerance levels don’t rise up to meet the situation. It was less bad than usual today, at the Mass for the Ascension (the ‘choir’ was absent).
You shouldn’t have to “tolerate” banal liturgy; I think if I were you I’d invest in driving lessons, or buy a bike…
Christopher – no Anglican use parishes in Aberdeen.
Dan – I know the priests at the other parishes. Though Aberdeen is a city of 215,000 souls, the number of RCs is small enough for everyone to get a look at everyone else. I know how many goes it took a younger priest to pass his exams at the Englis/Scots College in Spain. It wouldn’t be worth it getting a bike to cycle to the other parishes. The Cathedral may actually be the least bad. The huge influx of Poles over the past three or four years has made no difference because either they are given their own Mass in Polish, or – at the third parish in walking distance from where I live – a hideous compromise has resulted in everything being read twice, in English and in Polish, including semi-simultaneous translation of the (boring enough in English) sermon. There *is* a very good young Polish priest at the Cathedral, and though he is subordinate to the Scot and has no influence on the liturgy, it is great to have him to go to confession with.
Experiencing such a contrast did nothing to help my confusion about the recent “clarification” by Rome that the Church “subsists” only in the Catholic Church.
I do not think Rome is saying that the Orthodox Churches are not also a part of the true Church. On the contrary, the fact that the Catholic Church calls them “churches” (rather than “ecclesial communities”) shows that they are in fact true churches in the proper (i.e. eucharistic) sense.
However, what the Catholic Church does believe is that the Catholic Church is the only Church in which Christ’s Church fully subsists. By lacking juridical unity with the See of Peter, the Orthodox Churches are flawed, yet that does not prevent them from truly being churches.
You state what I believe, and what the Church has said, more or less. In the “clarificatiion”, however, there is no nuance; it states categorically that the Church “subsists” only in the Catholic Church. “Subsists” means simply “exists” or “inheres in”. If the statement had said “subsists in its fullness” I would have no problem. As it stands the “clarification” is no such thing, but confuses matters. If, as Rome acknowledges, the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, then by definition the Church exists in them.
Given that the Orthodox churches are true particular churches, that is, they are churches, not just grouping of baptized Christians, and have valid sacraments, it’s not surprising that they would often have beautiful and right worship, or glory.
This seems to me an entirely different question from whether they have separated themselves from the one Church of the Creeds. And after all, the Orthodox have pretty much a like opinion of us. It’s my understanding that some of them don’t even admit our sacraments, including baptisms, as valid.
Here is something linked from the website of Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Parma, which Dan visited.
“We Orthodox believe that we are the continuation of the ancient Orthodox Christian Church, that we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was `formally’ established on the day of Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church placed itself outside of this fellowship when it broke off communion with us in the 11th century.”
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=26&SID=3
So they think we placed ourselves outside the fellowship of the Church founded by Christ and the apostles, not just when we have stupid and impious rock masses but when we have beautiful and contemplative masses, such as the Latin nuptial Mass that Dan went to the week before.
From the Orthodox view it is rather simple: of the five ancient patriarchates, only Rome and Alexandria are not in communion with the other three, or with each other (true, there is an Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, but the ancient see, with most of its people, is Coptic). So it is obvious to the Orthodox who set themselves apart. And if they have separated themselves from the “Church of the Creeds” how is it that they are most noted for adherence to the ancient creeds?
As I have noted here before, I have become sympathetic to the Orthodox side of almost every controversy, the exception being the primacy of Peter and his See (though there are some Orthodox ecclesiologies that recognize this).
Your first sentence contains the gist of the confusion to me: if the Orthodox churches are “true particular churches” how can it be said that the Church of Christ does not subsist in them?
Besides the argument from Beauty, which von Balthasar called the first apologetic, I would argue from Truth, and from Goodness.
The Orthodox Churches, unlike the later movements of Christians which separated themselves from apostolic succession, did not end up in heresy; they have preserved in its pristine condition the faith of the Church of the first millenium. It is notable that Protestantism in all its forms, ends up losing even the ancient truths to which it once adhered.
And then there is the argument from Goodness: the Orthodox Churches produce real saints and real miracles. I am willing to grant that the Protestants manifest holiness as well- at least I have known Protestants who were manifestly holy- but the Orthodox Churches possess the means of holiness (the sacraments) and real miracles. While I can recognize the holiness of individual Protestants, I do not attribute that to anything inherent in the Protestant faith. And Protestant miracles are dubious, though I do not deny the possibility thereof, as the Holy Spirit “bloweth where He listeth”.
I have to say those points are pretty persuasive to me, too, Daniel. At the very very least, food-for-thought-making, pause-provoking. I’ve long noticed the point about heresy in Protestantism vs. Orthodoxy. I suppose the O are, from the C point of view, heretical almost by definition in ecclesiology, but other than that–throw in my usual disclaimer here about being barely literate in theology–the only heresies I’ve heard attributed to the O involved such very fine points that it seemed a stretch to call them heresies. Sorry, can’t think of any examples
And I agree with Daniel, Tom, that saying the O are “particular churches” but not part of the One Church is puzzling. Wouldn’t you lose church-ness by that separation?
The only things that are official Orthodox teaching are the Seven Ecumenical Councils; the rest is opinion and speculation. Just to clarify.
Often when I reflect on the choice between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, I find it critical to consider what Orthodoxy offers once one slips behind the veil. (And a lovely veil it is!)
The problem with many of the Orthodox churches is their unquestioning acceptance of an “Imperial Ecclesiology” as taught by the semi-Arian Eusebius of Caesarea (which transplanted the Apostolic See as the matrix of unity with the authority of the Imperium in something of a new”economia”) and the fact that they themselves cannot even determine what constitutes an ecumenical council (as was admitted by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in “The Orthodox Church”). When you think about it, if the unity and reception of the Patriarchates of East and West are the only criteria for an ecumenical council, then there has not been one since the First Council of Ephesus, since Alexandria and the monophysites went their own separate way (mostly away from the Imperial tactics) and after that, no Pentarchy could be in agreement.
So you now have is essentially an Imperial and Conciliar set of churches with neither emperor nor councils.
All of this has manifested itself in what is ultimately an unworkable, untenable Orthodox church polity.
I can understand the appeal and attraction of the Divine Liturgy. (I myself am Eastern Catholic.) But the fact remains that Orthodoxy, despite any claim to the contrary, finds it impossible to “speak with one voice” as Saint Irenaeus teaches. In fact, their prophetic voice as a functioning magisterium – something the West learned from the East – has been largely silenced by their own divisions, save for the magisterium of the Divine Liturgy, which is what has essentially held them “together”.
But don’t look to universal Orthodoxy for any type of magisterial guidance regarding the pressing issues of biomedical ethics and morality, for example. Ultimately what you have is the opinions of a few bishops and theologians, but nothing which is official or binding for all Orthodox.
The great Moscow/Constantinople split is completely without resolution so long as the Eusebian premise of an imperial ecclesiology keeps 2nd and 3rd Rome competing for the primacy. Meanwhile, the actual Rome, the matrix of authentic, apostolic Christian unity as upheld by the Fathers of the Church (most especially Athanasius of Alexandria…he might have had some strong opinions on the importance of the Roman primacy, true?), continues to exercise its ministry and tries to quietly “strengthen the brethren.”
That quiet strengthening was not always explicitly the case. We all know the excesses of a Caesaro-papism all too well!
So, IMHO, the Orthodox churches need to be seen for whom them are, just as do the Catholic churches. I say this as a lover of the Orthodox and as one who nearly joined over a decade ago. But a good Orthodox priest helped me to open my eyes and reconsider…
In ICXC,
Gordo
Two small points of clarification:
1. I wrote: “That quiet strengthening was not always explicitly the case. We all know the excesses of a Caesaro-papism all too well!”
I meant to say “Papo-caesarism”!
2. Also, the sarcastic little winking face above was actually the end of my parentheses gone bad. No winking was intended!
Apologies…it was a late night post.
In ICXC,
Gordo
The little winking face was supplied by the blogging software–it attempts to turn “emoticons” into graphics, and gets rather over-aggressive, seeing any right-paren as the smile in a smiley face. I’ll see if there’s a way to turn that feature off.
Interesting comment.
Yes, Gordo, that is the weakness of Orthodoxy. In contrast to Catholicism’s clean and clear juridical structure, they have a confused and disordered one. This is particulary clear in the irregular status of the various jurisdictions in the USA. You have one church claiming to be “The” Orthodox Church in America, a claim recognized by Moscow but not by the Ecumenical Patriarch or the other Orthodox churches. And so on.
Organizationally flawed, but as mystical reality? Doubtless.
Maclin wrote: “And I agree with Daniel, Tom, that saying the O are “particular churches” but not part of the One Church is puzzling. Wouldn’t you lose church-ness by that separation?”
In the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom one prays for (not a direct quote) “the holy churches of God and their unity” which seems at least to imply that the churches (particular churches be it noted) may not always preserve unity.
If Rome pronounced that all the particular churches that were out of communion with her had lost their “church-ness” I could imagine people exclaiming on how narrow Rome was, engaged in “unchurching” local churches that quite obviously had valid orders, etc. So I think Rome is actually being quite generous here in saying, Yes, you are a valid local church assembled around your bishop, but you need to be in communion with the divinely-willed center of unity, the See of Peter.
Daniel said that he finds the Catholic teaching confusing. I’d find it confusing it Rome said anything different, because I find it difficult to understand how a local church could both be part of but not part of the Church of Christ. But these separated local churches are related closely to the Church, quite obviously.
And is it so obvious that the Orthodox churches have kept the Faith absolutely pure? Prescinding from any dogmatic questions, what about their teaching on divorce, contraception, even abortion? While Daniel has argued that their attitude toward divorce is more straightforward than the current Catholic charade involving annulments – and I would not disagree with that – a bankrobber who frankly says he steals is more straightforward than a hypocrite who milks the bank’s money while going to church every Sunday. Maybe the robber will fare better on Judgment Day, but the public statements of the hypocrite which uphold morality still have some value in preserving public morality.
“Organizationally flawed, but as mystical reality? Doubtless.”
And yet any mystical meaning is rooted in the earthly, historical, “mud splashed” reality of the Church. Orthopraxis is as important as Orthodoxy and extends to the church as it functions in both its universal and local dimensions. The Church to be the ecclesia of the nations needs to function in unity, but without degenerating into uniformity. This is the essence of the Gospel. One cannot simply skip over the earthly in favor of the eschatological, which is the constant temptation of the Orthodox, in part because the historical, earthly dimension is not annihilated, but fulfilled in the parousia. Otherwise the Kingdom of God is simply castles on clouds.
What is doubtless is that Catholics have much to learn from the Orthodox in terms of worship and the operation of the local Church and its close relationship to the Fatherhood of the local bishop, who is not the CEO of Catholic Diocese, Inc. Equally doubtless is the Orthodox need for a ministry final arbitration and visible unity.
The tension and the loss we feel by not being unified is providential. I sense it every time I visit an Orthodox parish, and yet cannot approach the chalice. Hopefully it will spur us on to concrete steps towards renewal, reform and reunion.
In ICXC,
Gordo
Gordo- I certainly welcome your comments here, which are pithy and astute, and serve as a corrective for my aesthetic swoon. Tom speaks of “mere aesthetics” but to someone intoxicated by beauty there is nothing “mere” about it…I mean, you should see this church. And hear its choir.
As you know, when one immerses himself in Eastern ways, even in union with Rome, entering into the world of iconography, the Divine Liturgy, and the sublime Eastern musical traditions, one begins to feel more kindred to the Orthodox than to Latin Catholics. For example, I feel more at home in an Orthodox bookstore, with its icons and patristic writings, than in a typical Roman bookstore, with its sappy art and up to date volumes. Or even its Countereformation “classics”, which have always left me cold (St Teresa, St John and the Carmelites generally excepted). Even when I was a fervant Latin Catholic I went for the Romanesque and Early Medieval, aesthetically. The Countereformation and Baroque- let alone the unfortunate later developments- always left me cold.
But I do grant, when I have recovered a bit, that the Catholic Church has the benefit of a living active Apostolic authority, which enables it to deal with new moral dilemmas, at which the Orthodox churches seem to stumble…
Though I would note that the Eastern praxisregarding divorce and remarriage- with second marriages being non-sacramental and penitential, a concession to human weakness- predated the division. And was tolerated by Rome among the Eastern Catholic churches for some time after reunion.
Daniel,
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the “clarification” (and what is a Vatican clarification good for other than to confuse things?). It states:
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
Note what is specified in the definition of “subsistence”: all the elements instituted by Christ. As we believe that the Orthodox are missing a full understanding of the role of the bishop of Rome, we cannot say that “subsists”, at least as defined here, would be appropriate to apply to Orthodox Churches.
I’m not necessarily agreeing with that parsing, but I think it does address somewhat your concern.
Could you elaborate Daniel, on the “penitential” bit of second marriages?
Sure. The Orthodox regard the permanence of marriage as pretty sacrosant, to the point of believing that the relationship continues into eternity. If the marriage is broken there is no possibility of annulment, a concept foreign to Orthodox sensibility, which considers the Church the minister of the sacrament, not, like the Latins, the couple. So if the Church marries you, it is a done deal: what God has joined together and all that.
However, as man is weak and “it is not good for man to be alone” second unions are permitted, to prevent greater sin. However, there is no sacramental marriage; no crowns are worn in the ceremony, as in sacramental weddings. The couple must abstain for a set time from the Eucharist, and the ceremony is more penitential. It is seen as an exercise in “economia”, the relaxing of Church law in light of human weakness.
At least that is how it is supposed to be; I am told that the practice is not always so pristine, that second and third marriages are celbrated like first ones, at least in some jurisdictions. Sort of like how the theology behind the annulment is often reduced in practice, becoming Catholic divorce.
And Francis, the clarification apparently involves a new and novel definition of “subsists”, which does not help matters, IMHO.
What do the Orthodox say about marriage after the death of a spouse? Just wondering about the eternal union part–kinda makes me think of the widow who married seven brothers. It’s idle wondering, but I do sometimes speculate about such things.
I believe they consider second marriage, even for the widowed, as a concession to human weakness?
The Orthodox encourage widows and widowers to remain faithful to the departed spouse, but allows second marriage as a concession to human weakness. As with divorce, there is no crowning, and the tone of the service is more penitential.
Daniel,
You write that Orthodox discipline of divorce and remarraige was “tolerated by Rome among the Eastern Catholic churches for some time after reunion.” You’ve made this claim before, I think, in regards to the Melkites. I don’t recall whay evidence you provided. What is the basis of this claim?
Too, Fr. John Meyerdorff in his book Orthodoxy (if I remember correctly) admitted that the Orthodox “economy” of remarriage after divorce developed from the fact that the Eastern Empire gave to the Church the care of all matters pertaining to marriage. Since divorce was allowed under Roman law, it gradually found its way into Church law in the East. So, far from being an apostolic tradition or even a custom logically connected to apostolic tradition, it is a mere historical accident.
If allowing remarriage after divorce is a concession to human weakness, that is tantamount to saying the Church allows adultery as a concession to human weakness. Unless, of course, marriage is dissoluble.
The explanation of subsists given by the CDF is basically in accord with what subsistit means in scholastic theology and philosophy.
It is common knowledge that from 1724, when they entereed into union with Rome, until the early 20the century, when they adopted Latin praxis, the Melkites conformed to the Orthodox practice regarding second marriages. Ask any educated Melkite, or do a google search, Do you contradict this? With what evidence?
And however it evolved, Eastern praxis was in place before the division of the Churches.
As for “subsists”, everything I have found gives the simple definition of “exists”, or “inheres in”. Nothing about “exists in its fullness”. For example, we can say humanity subsists in Christopher Zehnder without claiming that humanity exists in its fullness in him.
But didn’t we beat this horse to death and beyond some time ago without resolution?
Daniel,
You are the one making the claim that Rome tolerated divorce and remarriage among the Melkites, so it is up to you to come up with the evidence. I denied nothing, merely asked you to support your point. Some time ago, on another thread, I asked for the evidence and you could not come up with it. I recall you said you did a Google search. Forgive me, but “any well-educated Melkite” just doesn’t cut it.
Humanity doesn’t subsist in its fullness in either Christopher Zehnder or Daniel Nichols. But human nature does, in each one of us. Neither one of us, nor any human being, is only partly human. Human nature is fully present in each one of us, and cannot be present in any other kind of thing. Beasts may have many of the same elements we have — sensibility, for instance — but they cannot have human nature. “Subsists” implies exclusivity.
But apart from subsists, even Vatican II uses both subsists and “is” to refer to the identity of the Catholic Church with the Body of Christ. And, since the council must be interpreted in light of tradition (as John Paul II and Benedict XVI have insisted), “subsists” can not contradict earlier formulations using “is.”
Daniel,
You wrote:
“As you know, when one immerses himself in Eastern ways, even in union with Rome, entering into the world of iconography, the Divine Liturgy, and the sublime Eastern musical traditions, one begins to feel more kindred to the almost Orthodox than to Latin Catholics. For example, I feel more at home in an Orthodox bookstore, with its icons and patristic writings, than in a typical Roman bookstore, with its sappy art and up to date volumes. Or even its Countereformation “classics”, which have always left me cold (St Teresa, St John and the Carmelites generally excepted). Even when I was a fervant Latin Catholic I went for the Romanesque and Early Medieval, aesthetically. The Countereformation and Baroque- let alone the unfortunate later developments- always left me cold.”
I concur, my brother! When I lived for 15 years in Minnesota, I think my family and I helped to subsidize the warehouse expansion of Light and Life! If given a choice between an Orthodox Icon and Bookshop and a Catholic one, I would “dox” every time at the point of sale…
I am also a professed SFO, which was the fruit at the time of my desire to enter into the mystical-penitential tradition of the Church. But as much as I love and admire Saint Francis, his teaching and his movement, it does not compare in my love and admiration for say the spiritual teachings of Saint Seraphim of Sarov or, most especially, Saint Ephrem the Syrian. And I was never satisfied as simply a ‘Little Flowers” kind of student of the Poverello. I started a “Franciscan Roots and Fruits Study Club” which went to the sources of Franciscanism, as then recently published by New City Press, and was also a pilgrim along with other Franciscans to Assisi. (Saint Bonaventure still has some appeal to me, I must admit…)
But even Saint Francis began his vocation at the foot of a Byzantine Icon.
So we Eastern Catholics must live like the offspring of a Great Divorce. It is a vocation born of a certain tension. The struggle is that often in our effort to retrieve the inheritance of one or the other parents, we are faced with a history of polemical diatribes, none of which serve the future reconciliation of our “parent churches,” and all of which are decidedly unhelpful as we attempt to recover particular elements of our great tradition. In the end, Rome may have custody and care over our bodies, but Constantinople or Antioch has the custody of our hearts!
So I share your experience on many levels. It is not swooning in the least. It is recognizing precisely those catholic elements of Orthodoxy that resonate with us, and that at times are completely lost on our Latin brothers and sisters whose worship at times seems far from Apostolic in its expression. Papa Bene does give me great hope, however!
God bless!
Gordo
Gordo- Amen and amen, with the exception of your hopeful take on Pope Benedict….
Christopher- You know, documenting common knowledge can be frustratingly difficult. I find many references to the fact of historic Melkite praxis, but nothing that would satisfy you. I did find a Melkite archbishop’s argument on the topic. Maybe Macliin can make it a link: http://www.geocities/derghazer/DIVORCE.DOC
But getting bogged down on this detail is a distraction, or are you arguing that Orthodox practice re remarriage postdates the division of the Churches? My sole point is that the difference in practice does not deter union.
If human nature can subsist in an imperfect human, like Daniel Nichols or Christopher Zehnder, why can’t ecclesial nature subsist in an imperfectly constituted body of believers? After all, even the severely retarded, who lack reason, intrinsic to man, must be regarded as fully human, no? Your argument suggests that the Orthodox are to the Church what beasts are to human, which I hope is not what you are meaning to say.
If Rome recognizes that the Orthodox are “particular Churches” how can it say that the Church does not subsist in them? Isn’t this what would make them Churches? Do they not do everything that Christ constituted the Church to do? Preach the apostolic faith? Dispense the saving mysteries? Produce saints? Are they not marked by miracles? Not to mention sublime beauty?
I feel like we are spinning our wheels in the sand here, going around and around about the same theological problem. I appreciate the work Tom put into documenting Catholicism’s pronouncements through the ages, but multiplication of texts does nothing to convince, when it seems contradictory.
Hmm. I tried to post a response but it disappeared when I hit the submit thing…I’ll try again….
Gordo- Amen and amen, with the exception of your hopeful take on Pope Benedict.
Christopher- You know, it can be maddingly difficult to document common knowledge. I found a lot of references to the Melkite discipline re second marriage post reunion, but it is simply cited as factual, as if everyone knew it. Somewhere someone must have submitted a thesis on “The History of Melkite Praxis on Divorce” but danged if I could find it. Here is a Melkite archbishop on the subject (maybe Maclin can make this a link): http://www.geocities/derghazer/DIVORCE.DOC
But quibbling about this is a diversion, or are you suggesting that Orthodox permission of second, penitential marriage postdated the split of the Churches? My point is that difference in discipline is not an impediment to union; at least it has not been historically.
If human nature can subsist in such imperfect creatures as you or I, how can ecclesial nature not subsist in organizationally flawed Churches? Human nature even subsists in the severely retarded, who lack reason, an essential part of human nature, doesn’t it? Your reasoning suggests that the Orthodox are to Catholics what beasts are to humans; I assume this is not what you want to connote, but that is what your illustration suggests.
The Orthodox churches, Rome says, are particular churches. But isn’t the presence of the Church of Christ in them precisely what makes them this? How can it be said that the Church does not subsist in a Church? One which does what Christ constituted the Church to do? Preaching the apostolic faith, administering the saving mysteries, producing saints, performing miracles?
I appreciate the work Tom did in researching his article, but multiplication of texts does not resolve intellectual difficulties.
Oh, I see that wordpress automatically makes the link; very nice, except I misspelled it and it doesn’t work. Try this: http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/DIVORCE.DOC
Hmm; once again a comment disappeared; is anyone else having this problem?
What I said is that wordpress automatically makes links, which is very nice. Except I misspelled it. So try: http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/DIVORCE.DOC
I am indeed finding some who say that Rome tolerated the Eastern Orthodox discipline of divorce by the Melkites for a time, and others who deny it. It is an interesting question, one that I might try to look into further if I have time.
It is possible, I guess, that Rome might have tolerated this under the guise of promoting a greater good. If so, it seems like an unwise policy to me.
But the more important question, I think, is what is true here and according to our Lord’s command: Can one licitly contract a second marriage with one’s spouse still living or not? And related to that is another question: How are we to know?
It seems to me that there are three possible answers to the second question: We know because the Magisterium tells us; we know because Scripture tells us (the typical Protestant answer); we know because of what the Fathers said or the praxis of the early Church was.
But what if there is a divergence in the praxis or what if the Fathers do not agree or are not clear?
Marriage and divorce are surely important matters that are pretty central to our life. If the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has been wrong about this for many centuries, then it would seem to call into question the Magisterium’s trustworthiness on other points, at least other moral points. This in turn would seem to invalidate the entire Catholic theory of the Church.
But since it seems to me clear that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, and that he established a Church to speak in his name, it doesn’t seem possible that the Magisterium could err in this or any other matter where it has fully committed itself.
When I was an Episcopalian I held to the branch theory under which the Roman, the Orthodox and the Anglican branches together made up the Catholic Church and only when the so-called Undivided Church was in agreement could we be sure of infallibility. I know that no one here is arguing that the Anglicans are a church in any sense, but it seems to be that there’s a suggestion of a two-branch theory instead of three branches.
I have tried to post this correction twice, with no success; I’ll try again.
I see that wordpress automatically makes links, which is very nice for a technological caveman like me, but it does no good if one misspells the address. Try this:www.geocities.com/derghazar/DIVORCE.DOC
Tom- I’ll address your post this evening, when I have more time.
Except this time it didn’t automatically make a link. Sigh…
Let’s see what happens if… http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/DIVORCE.DOC
I posted the above comment and it didn’t show, so I thought it might have been caught by the WordPress comment spam filter. Sure enough, it had, and along with it in the cage were two or three other comments, which I have now released, so there is at least one near-dup above. So you weren’t doing anything wrong, Daniel. I don’t think it automatically considers anything with a URL to be spam, but when the same one, or nearly, appeared more than once, that probably triggered it.
Obviously I need to keep a closer eye on that.
(“Site Administrator” above is me–I posted the prev comment while logged in.)
Dan said: The Orthodox churches, Rome says, are particular churches. But isn’t the presence of the Church of Christ in them precisely what makes them this? How can it be said that the Church does not subsist in a Church?
I’ve been thinking about the comments above that ‘subsists in’ is used in the ‘scholastic’ sense.
We know that, paradoxically, it turned out to be canonically problematic when Pius XII in Mystici Corporis so literally identified the RC Church with the Mystical Body that he appeared to deny membership of the body to baptised non Catholic Christians (such as the Orthodox, who have valid baptism).
Vatican II doesn’t of course precisely alter the earlier doctrine of the Church but it perhaps redescribes it in such a way as to give a different picture. This is part of what genuine development in doctrine is. Development is not change from one thing to another and it is not saying exactly the same thing over again.
As ‘subsistent’ is used by the scholastics, only God has ‘subsistent being’, because he is his being. Everything else has dependent being.
If one said that the ‘Church’ subsists in the Petrine Church, one is saying that only the RC church has its own churchliness. All other ‘Churches’ (eg the orthodox) have their being as churches from the RC church – by the grace which overflows from the RC church. In one way, subsistit as used here means the same as ‘is’ – it’s not saying the Church could be in lots of other places we don’t know of. But in other way, the use of the term ‘subsistit’ allows for the ‘communion’ or participation of other churches (eg the orthodox) in the Churchliness of the RC Church.
Thus the Extraordinary Synod of Bps in 1985 said that ‘communion’ was the key to the ecclesiology of Vatican II. Unlike ‘is’, ‘subsistit’ allows for the ‘communion’ of non-Catholic churches in the full reality of Churchliness in the RC church. In one way, it’s the same concept as ‘is’ but in another way, ‘subsistit’ permits an extension of churchliness from the Church to others.
Tom- Where did you find someone disputing the claim that the Melkites continued their tradition for some time after union? I have only seen this stated as fact.
And remember that Orthodox praxis did not prevent union with Rome for the first millenium.
I think you misconstrue the central question. Roman Catholics act as though the Orthodox view would open the floodgates to careless divorce and remarrage. But the Orthodox also believe in the indissolubility of marriage; the second union is not a sacramental union, but a union permitted by the Church to save souls from greater temptation. Indeed, it is more restrictive than the Catholic annulment practice: first, in that it is open only to the innocent party, and second, that it is canonically forbidden to marry one’s partner in adultery. Neither of these things are true in Catholic praxis, and indeed many of us know Catholics who have pursued an adulterous relationship, divorced their spouses, gotten annulments and wed the adulterous lover. In a “sacramental” wedding, no less. (I put “sacramental” in quotes because I doubt the validity of such a marriage.
Of course I don’t know if the Orthodox live up to this standard in reality. But Catholics, with their annulment racket, ought not get on a high horse about it if they don’t.
Note that the Catholic Church permits its members to contract non-sacramental marriages, as when they marry the unbaptized.
But did Christ not say that anyone who divorces and marries another commits adultery? Yes, for the one who puts away his wife (or her husband) for another. For the one who is wronged a second union lacks the element of betrayal which is inherent in adultery.
I would note here, too, that God has in history made room for human weakness. Old Testament saints were allowed not only to divorce, but to take multiple wives, and even concubines; basically to have any woman who would consent to it, so long as they cared for any resultant children!
That the Orthodox Church thinks it can allow committed monogamous relationshios for people whose marriages have been destroyed by no fault of their own does not seem extreme.
I note too that the Church often allows behavior that falls short of Our Lord’s ideal. Killing in war, which even in just wars required penance, comes to mind. Or allowing Christians who sue one another to continue to receive communion (contrary to St Paul’s teaching). Or for that matter, it allows Catholics to pursue justice when wronged, instead of accepting injustice, as Our Lord so clearly teaches us to do.
Francisca- Allow me to chew on your post a bit before responding….
I would also add that probably in practice, Catholic and Orthodox people are about the same: there is a lot of divorce and remarriage, however it is framed. And you mentioned birth control, which the Orthodox also allow, citing economia again. But from what I have seen, most Catholics and most Orthodox practice artificial contraception. Probably the same percentage are open to life. And it’s not like the Catholic Church is preaching on these things, or denying communion to contraceptors.
Dan,
First, on the question of Melkite practice, here’s a quote I found,
“In nearly all cases, marriages are first marriages; Melkite Greek Catholics do not divorce, and seldom remarry after being widowed (Jabbra, 1978)”
http://www.serialspublications.com/images/upload/4-Nancy%20W%Jabbra.pdf (Note this article appears on another web site that requires payment, but is free here.)
I found a couple other places that said it too, but this seemed like the most authoritative. I don’t doubt that the Melkites did continue the Orthodox practice, at least in some places. My questions are: Was this officially approved by their bishops, or merely tolerated? Did the Melkite bishops take steps against it, was this only under presssure by Rome, etc.
Then, you say, “I think you misconstrue the central question. Roman Catholics act as though the Orthodox view would open the floodgates to careless divorce and remarrage. But the Orthodox also believe in the indissolubility of marriage; the second union is not a sacramental union, but a union permitted by the Church to save souls from greater temptation. Indeed, it is more restrictive than the Catholic annulment practice: first, in that it is open only to the innocent party, and second, that it is canonically forbidden to marry one’s partner in adultery. Neither of these things are true in Catholic praxis, and indeed many of us know Catholics who have pursued an adulterous relationship, divorced their spouses, gotten annulments and wed the adulterous lover. In a “sacramental” wedding, no less.”
“Of course I don’t know if the Orthodox live up to this standard in reality. But Catholics, with their annulment racket, ought not get on a high horse about it if they don’t.”
I don’t think I’ve been on a high horse, and I haven’t denounced anyone. The central question in my mind is simply a question of what is right or wrong about a very important question of human conduct and how we know whether it is right or wrong, and what the implications are for our entire understanding of Church authority.
I also am not talking about whether Catholics or Orthodox observe the law of Christ better in practice – I certainly have no idea about that. Again, I’m interested only in who is right and how we know. Christ indicated that the Old Testament marriage praxis was contrary to the original institution of marriage, and that he had restored the original institution, at least for Christians. So now our inquiry ought to be, what does the law of Christ say now. Polemics about the lax annulment practice of the Catholic Church or about the lax divorce practice of the Orthodox churches are not to the point.
I’m sorry, Tom, if my comments were taken personally; I was only foreseeing what some RCs would inevitably point out.
What you cite does not refute the contention that Melkites continued Orthodox praxis; by all account Melkites have always been noted for divorce being very rare.
As you know, documentation on the history is hard to find; most of what I know is just what I have heard from people who sound like they know what they are talking about. It seems, from such an astute source, :^) that the Melkites gradually adopted Latin practice on their own.
I would say that it would be good if the Churches took a good look at both their own and the other’s practice. Given the strictures of traditional Orthodox praxis, it would seem that anyone who qualified for a second union would be granted a Catholic annulment, doesn’t it?
Francesca- having chawed a bit on your post, I can only say that if this is the best ecclesiology we can come up with we might as well kiss any hope of reunion goodbye. The idea that their churchness only is the overflow of the RCC would stick in the craw of the Orthodox.
Personally, it seems to me that they obtain their own “churchness” from the apostolic tradition that flows within, and while lacking union with Peter, which is a component of being whole, we differ on just what and how big a flaw that is.
Dan,
I don’t know that I took offense, but I did react to your comment about Catholics on their high horse denouncing the Orthodox, because I didn’t see that being done by anyone in this discussion.
In any case, the quote I found, “Melkite Greek Catholics do not divorce” is not altogether clear. It could mean that they don’t because they can’t or that in fact they simply don’t, perhaps because of their high regard for marriage or social custom or maybe their extra sweet dispositions, even though they could theoretically do so. But I suspect the historical record is mixed. Unfortunately one might have to know Arabic to research it thoroughly.
“Given the strictures of traditional Orthodox praxis, it would seem that anyone who qualified for a second union would be granted a Catholic annulment, doesn’t it?” Actually I saw on another blog the suggestion that maybe the Orthodox were implicitly saying there was something wrong with the original marriage when they granted a “second” one, so that the Catholic and Orthodox approaches could be harmonized. I don’t know, but it’s an interesting idea that might prove fruitful.
Since under the Orthdox system, the bishop is supposed to exercise discretion in allowing for a second union, perhaps we can say that he functions as an informal marriage tribunal. I’m sure that when the Orthodox system is working as it is intended, no bishop would grant a second union to someone who left his wife of 20 years for a younger woman, just as no Catholic tribunal would grant an annulment for such a thing, when that system is working as it is supposed to.
But even if both systems were working perfectly, we’d still have the difference in the possibility of remarriage of the “innocent” spouse. I put innocent in quotes not because I don’t think there are truly innocent spouses, but because sometimes one can appear to be an innocent spouse but not really so. For example, a woman could be so cold about the marriage act that it becomes difficult for her husband not to resist someone who is throwing herself at him.
But I still maintain that the important question is simply what is the truth of the matter and how do we know.
Daniel,
The article’s argument that the Latin discipline on remarriage requires heroic virtue while one’s spouse is still living is interesting. He says that the Church is indulgent in allowing second marriages because to do otherwise would require heroic virtue on the part of the abandoned spouse. Yet, there are other situations that might require similar heroic virtue — for instance, a marriage where one’s spouse is cold or distant, where the wife or husband are unwilling to render the marriage debt, where sickness or debility precludes a normal married life. Such situations could require the sudden practice of heroic virtue. What, then? Are we to sanction bigamy in such cases? Luther argued so, in the case of Philip of Hesse, and appealed to Old Testament praxis for support.
I don’t know (and clearly neither does the bishops) why Rome never protested the Eastern discipline on divorce and remarriage before 1054. But silence doesn’t indicate acceptance. It could indicate tolerance or acquiescence. But it is clear what the magisterium teaches on divorce and remarriage — and the magisterium has more authority even than the Greek Fathers. To ignore this, as Bishop Zoghby does, is to relativize the authority of Rome.
As for Rome tolerating Melkite practice on divorce being common knowledge — I’ve spent time in Byzantine circles; have actually been quite deep into them and never heard the claim. It may be true, but even if true, the fact that Rome didn’t intervene in the practice if of dubious value in coming to any sort of conclusion on the merits of the practice. There are many reasons why one would tolerate a practice, and different ways of tolerating a practice which take on different hues of meaning given the time in which and the circumstances under which the practice is tolerated.
Yes, there are instances when heroic virtue is demanded by circumstances beyond one’s control, as in the examples you cite. Or think of the poor soul afflicted by same sex attraction; even for the most lonely bachelor or spinster there is always hope of relief. For the homosexual there is none, and the only moral path is celibacy.
But should the Church multiply the cases where heroic virtue is thrust upon souls?
And really, in considering the prerequisites for reunion, do you really think it necessary to erect roadblocks that did not exist in the first millenium, before the split?
Hopefully, any agreement on marriage discipline would move both Churches into a deeper understanding. I have read in an Orthodox onlline theological journal some things that lead me to believe that at least some Orthodox are rethinking the theology of marriage and the idea that the Church, rather than the couple, is the minister of the sacrament.
Which article can be found at: http://www.theandros.com/economy.html
(I hope I did that right).
Daniel,
The Catholic Church contends that, in the case of divorce and remarriage, not she but her Lord has called for heroic virtue. She can no more permit adultery than she can permit contraception. Whatever the case was in the first centuries, the toleration of divorce and remarriage today would introduce a dangerous principle of moral relativism — the very principle espoused by modernist western theologians when they argue that Church teaching on contraception represents an ideal to which some might be too weak to rise. What may be at stake here is something greater than Church unity; and that is, orthodoxy, truth. One may have Church unity, a great irenic Christian brotherhood; he may have beautiful liturgies and art — but these without truth are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing.
“…the toleration of divorce and remarriage”? What do you call the status quo, with its easy annulments?
I do not doubt that there are valid cases for annulment, not at all, but we all know that the system is a joke.
Dan,
I don’t speak for Christopher obviously, though I’m sure that he would agree with the substance of what I’m about to say.
You wrote, “`…the toleration of divorce and remarriage’? What do you call the status quo, with its easy annulments?
I do not doubt that there are valid cases for annulment, not at all, but we all know that the system is a joke.”
What you say is all too true! But what is the solution? To clean up the Catholic marriage tribunals, or to simply concede the point? If you object, as I do myself, to the current Catholic annulment culture and corrupt tribunals, let’s work to restore a sense of obedience to Christ’s command, rather than just give up and give in to ever present human weakness by officially permitting remarriage after divorce.
As Christopher said and I’ve tried to say myself, the fundamental question is what is the law of Christ and what authority does the Church have? The Catholic Church claims she has no authority to permit remarriage after divorce if one’s spouse is still living. This claim is either true or false. That is the question we should be debating.
Tom replied better than I could. I will only add that, one may tolerate vice on a practical level (as what certainly seems to be occuring in marriage tribunals) or one can “tolerate” it by no longer recognizing it as wrong. Catholics do the former in regards to annulments — as in other areas does every other human institution, as far as I can tell, including the Orthodox. But, insofar as the teaching on divorce and remarriage goes, the Orthodox do the latter; the Catholic Church does not.
Abuse in practice does not overthrow truth. But altering teaching does. If one wants to dismiss a teaching because some people at some time don’t follow, then we’ll have to throw out doctrine altogether and become, well, Unitarians.
The distinction is that the Orthodox do not consider the second union as a sacramental marriage, so they don’t teach “divorce and remarriage”. Catholics do allow remarriage, with the caveat that the first marriage simply did not exist. Of course, sometimes this is true, but often it is a fiction.
If it is any comfort for those of us who hope for reunion, if the Orthodox praxis is applied with any rigor the person in question would qualify for Catholic annulment, were that also approached with rigor. The problem for both Churches is that in practice there is often laxity.
Catholic theologians, including the last two popes, have repeatedly said that the first millenium ought to be the guide for reunion. This would require greater humility from Rome than from the Orthodox patriarchs, as it is Rome that introduced new formulations of the Faith, upped the ante in its claims of authority, and changed ancient sacramental discipline (like the order of the sacraments of initiation), all without consulting the other patriarchs. As for canon law, Rome ought to emulate the ages of union and not impose its own traditions. On the other question that rises, concerning artificial contraception, I think it is the Orthodox who need to look to the praxis of the ancient Church and return to its roots.
A couple of websites for those who wish to delve deeper into the questions surrounding the reunion of the ancient patriarchates: http://www.eirenikon.wordpress.com , which is dedicated to documenting the conversation. There is a pithy address by the Melkite archbishop Elias Zoghby, already cited, there, on the conditions for reunion.
Another is the website for the Society of St John Chrysostom, of which I am a member: http://www.byzantines.net/stjohnchrysostom This latter is most valuable for the links it provides…
As I recall, it was Francesca who said last time we discussed these matters, there there was not necessarily agreement on what it meant to say that “the first millenium ought to be the guide for reunion.”
That is, I think Catholics and Orthodox would differ in their interpretation of many things during that era, including and especially the authority of the papacy.
Both communions have continued to develop since the schism. Until one first decides the question of what happened at the time of the schism, i.e., did the true Church of Christ split in two, did the true Church of Christ remain centered in Rome (as Catholics have always claimed) or did the true Church of Christ remain in the East (as Orthodox claim), it seems to me we’re either spinning our wheels or evading the main point in our discussions. I too greatly desire reunion, but not at the price of truth.
What you say about the order of the sacraments of initiation in the Latin church is certainly true, but I’m not aware that this is said to be justified by any doctrine, but rests simply on a certain confusion of thought and unwillingness to get out of a rut.
I will mention one point. I have an article from the Eastern Churches Quarterly from back around 1940 (Dan has a copy of this too which I sent him) showing exclusively from Eastern Fathers that the change in the eucharistic elements into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs at the Words of Institution, not the Epiclesis. As everyone knows, today the Orthodox say that it is the Epiclesis that effects this change. If the article is accurate, whence do the Orthodox derive their current theology on this point? Apparently from post-schism theologians and writers, since it’s not in the Fathers (again, assuming that this article is correct in its citations).
It’s my suspicion that much in current Orthodox teaching and praxis cannot be traced back to the Fathers, but derives from post-schism teaching and practice.
I don’t have time to address this at any length, only to note that as I understand it, the Orthodox don’t insist one way or the other on exactly what happens when, only object to what they see as the overanalytical western habit of mind, which tries to unscrew the unscrutable.
The Orthodox do not say that” it is the Epiclesis that effects this change”; what they say is that the Eucharistic Prayer is indivisible, and that the Epiclesis is an integral part, that we ought not dissect holy things.
Of course the interpretation of the first millenium differs, even among the Orthodox. As you may know, it is more accurate to speak of “Orthodox ecclesiologies” rather than a single one. Most will acknowledge a legitimate primacy for Peter and his successors, but I have seen some Orthodox (converts?) who ape the Protestant line, down to denying that Peter was bishop of Rome.
Speaking of converts, do scroll down on the first link, the one to Eirenikon, for a hilarious “report” on a zealous convert, from The Onion Dome, an Orthodox humor site modeled on The Onion. Pretty funny.
Oops, and that should be “unscrew the inscrutable”…duh.
Daniel,
If the first union is a sacramental marriage and is indissoluble, then one who enters into a second marriage has in effect two spouses, regardless whether or not the second marriage is sacramental. If you are unwilling to call such a situation adultery, at least it must be considered bigamy (biandry?) It seems your only grounds for thinking this understanding preferable to the Catholic understanding is that it is a) more compassionate; and/or b) Catholics abuse the annulment process. The first would allow for all sorts of license; the second is just not an argument against Catholic teaching.
You would relativize Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage by reducing it to a tradition of the West. But the Catholic Church says it far more than this. So, basically, you disagree with the Catholic Church. You dissent from Catholic teaching.
You speak of reunion, meaning by it, it appears, that on nearly every point Rome has to accede to the Orthodox. If this be indeed the case, and on nearly every controverted point the Orthodox are right and Rome wrong, then why would you insist on the teaching authority of the pope? It certainly hasn’t seemed to have done much good over the centuries. The Orthodox have done better without it, it appears, if I follow what seems to be your drift.
Ah, Mr Zehnder plays the heresy card. Well, put that back up your sleeve; it doesn’t apply.
One of the few things Tom and I have agreed on in this conversation is that if the Orthodox discipline is applied with any rigor, the (truly) innocent party would certainly be able to obtain an annulment in a Catholic tribunal. Now, the Catholic Church does not create nullity, it only recognizes it. If there is no tribunal to do so, the sacrament still does not exist. So a second union is not adultery.
In practice, the Churches are not so far apart. Indeed, in Catholic circles there is an implicit recognition that the second union is somewhat less than ideal. It is generally celebrated quietly, with little hoopla, for example.
And yes, I think Rome has more bending to do than the East; while Orthodoxy has not been entirely static, they have changed little from the first millenium, while Rome has changed creeds and discipline and added dogmas in what seems to the Orthodox as an arbitrary manner.
And criticizing the manner a role has been exercised does not imply a lack of recognition of the role itself.
Only the most hardcore triumphalist will not grant that the way Rome has declared its primacy has been a bit over the top, historically. Much of 20th century ecclesiology has consisted of nuancing the autocratic claims of the Roman See. Marching into the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy and laying a bull of excommunication on the altar was not the most convincing argument for Roman authority. Much of late medieval and Tridentine church pronouncement seems designed to offend and repel. Peter is supposed to feed the sheep, not drag them to the shearer. The one who is supposed to be “the servant of the servants of God” has often come off sounding like he is declaring “I AM THE BOSS OF YOU”.
Thankfully, the popes of our time have returned to a more humble assessment of their role.
I see Eirenikon has posted Tom’s article, calling it a good summation of Catholic ecclesiology; good job, Tom.
Daniel,
So, you now are saying that the Orthodox discipline is simply a declaration of nullity? It is merely annulment, expressed in different terms? For if it is not, then a second marriage would certainly be adultery. And if it is not, and you embrace it as preferable to the Catholic teaching then, yes, you dissent from Catholic teaching. No card playing here; just a simple statement of fact.
And as for laying the bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia, you will recall that it was directed at Patriarch Michael Kerullarios, who forced the suppression of the Antiochene liturgy in favor of the Byzantine liturgy; who closed the Latin churches in Constantinople; and who condemned the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.
And if we are to speak of usurpation, it should not be forgotten that Constantinople was never an ancient, apostolic see, but derived its status from the fact that it was the political capital of the Roman world — and its patriarchs pushed this untraditional status on the Church. And if we are to speak of innovations, what of that most curious innovation that places the emperor as the head of the Church. The growth in papal power in the Middle Ages was a struggle against precisely this caesaropapism to which the East wholly succumbed.
In fine, you ignore the very real ambition of the Patriarch of Constantinople, an ambition which had no basis in previous tradition but which was merely an accommodation to a political order whose roots were pre-Christian. One finds an echo of this attitude in the establishment of Moscow as the “Third Rome.” Daniel, you’re swalling Orthodox propaganda hook, line and sinker. They have not been the sweet, violated innocents that they claim to be. A point, by the way, Vladimir Soloviev makes in his Russia and the Universal Church.
No, I am not “swalling” anything; I never said it was all Rome’s fault, just that it wasn’t all Constantinople’s either, and that Orthodox arguments ought to be viewed with some sympathy.
The elevation of Constantinople to the status of patriarchal see was done at the Second Ecumenical Council. You object? That would make you the dissenter, no?
And whatever the provocation, most Catholic scholars would hold that the excommunication of 1254 was a rash act, one with longlasting and tragic results.
And no, I did not say that Orthodox praxis re divorce was “simply a declaration of nullity”. It is no such thing; annulment is not an Orthodox concept, though as I pointed out, there are indications that an Orthodox theology of marriage may be evolving that would make room for it. What I did say was that situations that merited economia would de facto be recognized as null by Catholics. A second marriage, when the first was null would not be adultery, whether or no there was a Roman tribunal to make the declaration. Again, the tribunal does not create the annulment, it only recognizes it.
What I don’t understand is why Catholics would wish to multiply obstacles to reunion. You and Tom object to things that were historically acceptable deviations in canon law and liturgical theology. I mean, who cares when someone says the bread ceases to exist as bread? Why this obsession with quantifying everything? Is it not enough that this miracle occurs on the altar of both Churches?
What if one Roman theologian says that the transformation only occurs when the priest utters the last words of consecration “This is my body“? And another says no, it is when the priest says the word “is”? Are you going to split over such a silly thing?
Latin precision can have its good points, and comes in handy in handling theological disputes on some level (the Church handled the Protestant revolt quite well, thank you), but there must be room for mystery, and there is no need to measure and analyze every breath of the Spirit.
Just to set things entirely straight, in comment #67 Dan was replying to my statements in #52 above, which ran:
“`Given the strictures of traditional Orthodox praxis, it would seem that anyone who qualified for a second union would be granted a Catholic annulment, doesn’t it?’ Actually I saw on another blog the suggestion that maybe the Orthodox were implicitly saying there was something wrong with the original marriage when they granted a “second” one, so that the Catholic and Orthodox approaches could be harmonized. I don’t know, but it’s an interesting idea that might prove fruitful.
Since under the Orthdox system, the bishop is supposed to exercise discretion in allowing for a second union, perhaps we can say that he functions as an informal marriage tribunal. I’m sure that when the Orthodox system is working as it is intended, no bishop would grant a second union to someone who left his wife of 20 years for a younger woman, just as no Catholic tribunal would grant an annulment for such a thing, when that system is working as it is supposed to.
But even if both systems were working perfectly, we’d still have the difference in the possibility of remarriage of the “innocent” spouse. I put innocent in quotes not because I don’t think there are truly innocent spouses, but because sometimes one can appear to be an innocent spouse but not really so. For example, a woman could be so cold about the marriage act that it becomes difficult for her husband not to resist someone who is throwing herself at him.
But I still maintain that the important question is simply what is the truth of the matter and how do we know.”
I think this harmonizing approach could be explored fruitfully, but I’m not saying we’re in agreement yet.
Sorry, Dan, I didn’t read carefully enough your latest comments. You wrote:
“What I don’t understand is why Catholics would wish to multiply obstacles to reunion. You and Tom object to things that were historically acceptable deviations in canon law and liturgical theology. I mean, who cares when someone says the bread ceases to exist as bread? Why this obsession with quantifying everything? Is it not enough that this miracle occurs on the altar of both Churches?
What if one Roman theologian says that the transformation only occurs when the priest utters the last words of consecration `This is my body’? And another says no, it is when the priest says the word `is’? Are you going to split over such a silly thing?
Latin precision can have its good points, and comes in handy in handling theological disputes on some level (the Church handled the Protestant revolt quite well, thank you), but there must be room for mystery, and there is no need to measure and analyze every breath of the Spirit.”
The article that I sent you about a year ago from Eastern Churches Quarterly shows exclusively from Eastern sources that the change in the elements occurs at the words of Institution. I’m not especially concerned with this issue in itself, but I’ve used it as a convenient example since I have the article at hand which contains appropriate citations.
But it does seem that the Eastern Fathers, John of Damascus, etc. seem to be concerned to be precise here. I’m just following them. and mostly just interested in seeing that Catholic teaching is neither compromised nor ignored.
Perhaps I’m wrong that modern day Orthodox claim that it’s the epiclesis that effects the change (although just the other day on the Byzantine Forum I read a claim to that effect, so I don’t think this is just a figment of my imagination.)
I do not want to multiply even one obstacle to reunion, but neither to do I want to ignore or minimize one obstacle that the Catholic Church has taught to be essential. Here is what the CCC says on this issue,
“1353. In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.”
I consider the Catechism normative for Catholics. And in this case (as I would imagine in all others) the Greek Fathers are in complete agreement, at least as per the ECQ article I have referred to more than once.
BTW, the article on epiclesis in the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes Orthodox sources as being quite as concerned with precision as are Latins. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Here’s a excerpt from Kallistos Ware,
“It will be evident that the ‘moment of consecration’ is understood somewhat differently by the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. According to Latin theology, the consecration is effected by the Words of Institution: “This is my Body…” “This is my Blood…” According to Orthodox theology, the act of consecration is not complete until the end of the Epiclesis, and worship of the Holy Gifts before this point is condemned by the Orthodox Church as ‘artolatry’ (bread worship). Orthodox, however, do not teach that consecration is effected solely by the Epiclesis, nor do they regard the Words of Institution as incidental and unimportant. On the contrary, they look upon the entire Eucharistic Prayer as forming a single and indivisible whole, so that the three main sections of the prayer — Thanksgiving, Anamnesis, Epiclesis — all form an integral part of the one act of consecration (Some Orthodox writers go even further than this, and maintain that the consecration is brought about by the whole process of the Liturgy, starting with the Prothesis and including the Synaxis! Such a view, however, presents many difficulties, and has little or no support in Patristic tradition).”
If this is the more common Orthodox position, then I either misunderstood it or had chanced upon a minority position. But in any case, I don’t see how one is much more legalistic than the other. If I say, X happens at 11:00 or if I say, X happens between 11 and 11:15, I’m still being precise in each case.
I don’t have the ECQ article in front of me right now, but will look at it again to see what it says about the modern Orthodox view.
Of course when one speaks in generalities one is bound to overstate things. Of course there are Orthodox theologians who value precision; there at one time was even great interest and study of scholasticism. But generalities do bear some truth, too.
The CCC is going to reflect a western theological sensibility, though it does so far less than say the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
And again, official Orthodox teaching consists of the Ecumenical Councils, as recognized by their Church. Everything else is opinion. Though I am puzzled by Bishop Kallistos Ware’s contention that any honor given before the completion of the prayers is “bread worship”, as the Orthodox bow and cross themselves right after the words of consecration.
Either way, this is hardly the sort of thing that would be an obstacle to union; widely different theologies are possible so long as essential doctrine is one.
And a word about the Byzantine Forum: I have learned a lot there, but there is a pretty wide variety of people posting there. Some, like Neil, who posts as “Irish Melkite”, Alex (“Orthodox Catholic”) or Deacon Lance, are fonts of knowledge and very erudite. From there the quality descends all the way to bigmouth blowhard.
I should note that this is relatively new territory for me, that I am essentially exploring, thinking and rethinking out loud. I appreciate the challenges, the sharpening of thought that occurs here. And- aside from Christiopher’s occasional name-calling- I appreciate the courteous tone to the conversation.
Daniel,
Since the elevation of Constantinople was at best a disciplinary act of a council, it is not a matter of doctrinal dissent. A disciplinary act can have its roots in many historical causes. It can wise or foolish, nobly or ignobly inspired. In the case of Constantinople, the causes it seems were primarily political and, as Soloviev would argue, an accommodation to an imperial absolutism founded in paganism.
You write: “What I did say was that situations that merited economia would de facto be recognized as null by Catholics. A second marriage, when the first was null would not be adultery, whether or no there was a Roman tribunal to make the declaration. Again, the tribunal does not create the annulment, it only recognizes it.”
This is an assumption. But whether or not situations that merited economia would be recognized as null by Catholics or not, the fact is (is it not?) that Orthodox teaching states that an innocent party may contract a non-sacramental marriage while still part of an indissoluble marital union. There is no concept that the first marriage has ended (since it is indissoluble) or that it never was. This is contrary to Catholic teaching, which is the authority for all Catholics, whether eastern or western. Even if one could argue that the Church can dissolve an indissoluble union, he would still be contradicting Catholic teaching, which one must accede to to be a Catholic.
Your suggestion that union between the Churches should include toleration for this difference is tantamount to saying that union should occur regardless of truth, or that we can sacrifice some truth for the sake of union. (But how much truth can we sacrifice?) I doubt most Orthodox would agree to this, though, sadly, too many Catholics would.
By the way, Daniel, I haven’t called you any names. I have merely pointed out the conclusions that arise from your seeming assertions. You can’t expect everyone to be able to detect when you are merely “exploring, thinking, and rethinking out loud.”
Well how is it that union existed for a thousand years? Whatever theological problems the coexistence of differing disciplines raises I’m sure they can be resolved by more astute theologians than you or I. Maybe a couple of sharp Jesuits can get on the job. :^)
In the Right Glory post I spoke of the frescos that cover Holy Trinity’s walls and ceiling. Their website has some of them, but doesn’t really give you an idea of the overwhelming beauty of the place. I found a site with photos of Fr Theodore Jurewicz’s work, frescos at a Serbian Orthodox monastery in Illinois, which will give you a better idea. Click on “monastery” and scroll down for a look: http://www.novagracanica.org
I see that you have to click “english” in the lower left hand corner first…
Just a note; I got an wedding invitation today from an old friend I have not spoken to in a number of years, since shortly after he left his first wife, the mother of his five children, for another woman. He is getting married in a Catholic church, and it is apparently a big wedding, or I would not have been invited. I don’t know if he is marrying the woman who was his partner in adultery.
Note that this was not a merely nominally Catholic family, but members for years in a charismatic covenant community. He had studied catechisis and was for many years a director of religious education.
I am aware that his wife was not completely “innocent”, as he had confided in me some time before he bailed that he had not had marital relations in years, but I would also be hesitant to excuse him any responsibility for this. Every marriage is by definition a mystery to those outside its circle, after all, and I know him to be an impatient and hot-tempered man, and his wife to be shy and introspective. And whatever the stress he was under, he left his wife as his children were in the midst, or on the verge, of adolescence.
As this man obviously has received an annulment, and as he is going to enter a “sacramental marriage” with the blessing of the Church, how again is it that the sanctity of marriage is so threatened by Orthodox praxis, which would have denied hiim a second marriage?