Prolegomena to Any Future Reunion
Probably an important thing to do before really delving into the various issues that may arise between churches is to lay a bit of groundwork. That is precisely what I intend to do here.
The reader is asked to oblige the fact that my main contention will sound rather pessimistic: issues are likely not going to be worked out at all if neither side is willing to "budge." By "budge," I certainly do not mean a compromise of faith; each side must be respected to the fullest extent possible. At the same time, however, there must be at least a willingness toward self-examination and toward charitably considering the other side. It will become more apparent what I mean if I stop beating around the bush and simply address what I think is a source for many of the difficulties between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox interlocutors: the status of post-schism councils.
This point will likely affect the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter, RCC) more significantly than the Eastern Orthodox Church (hereafter, EOC), due to two factors: first, a prevalence of post-schism councils, and second, an eventual willingness to consider said councils "ecumenical." It is a well-known fact that the RCC has held a number of doctrinal councils (i.e., councils addressing doctrine) after its separation -- a phrasing which, I should add, is not meant to assert a responsibility for said separation -- from the Eastern churches: namely, the Fourth Lateran, Lyons, Florence, Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. What is perhaps not so well-known is that the tendency to identify such councils as "ecumenical" did not perhaps arise until the time of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, circa 1586-1593 AD. Before that time, as is well-documented by Eastern Catholic historian Francis Dvornik in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies and elsewhere (see, for example, his work on the Photian Schism), it was common, even after the schism between East and West, for the RCC to maintain that only the first seven agreed-upon councils were ecumenical. This fact is even reflected in the early post-schism professions of faith which were recited by newly-elected popes -- a point I emphasize because it may be of some special significance for Roman Catholic readers. What Dvornik and others have drawn from all of this is that it is not clear which councils beyond the seven, if any, are to be regarded as truly ecumenical; at least it does not seem to be a matter of dogma which councils are regarded as such (the fact that Robert Bellarmine simply began calling later councils such in his own private works -- works which were, it should be noted, situated in a context aimed at defending the RCC against Protestantism, and which were thus centered around mostly Western church interests -- is hardly grounds for dogma). Lending support to all of this is another lesser-known fact: namely, that Pope Paul VI stated, in a message commemorating the aforementioned Council of Lyons, that "the Council of Lyons was the sixth of the general synods held in the West" (the source for this is Unite Chretienne, February 1975, p. 15); the fact that he did not call this council "ecumenical" is not only significant because of his place as Pope and because of the fact that he said this at Lyons, but also because the Council of Lyons even had some (very small) Eastern presence and was supposed to have been a union council between East and West. Though the "union" at Lyons was eventually rejected by the East, it is at least one of the post-schism councils that the RCC would be more likely to regard as ecumenical and to regard as potentially binding on the Orthodox in the event of eventual reunion, should they wish to do so. The fact that they perhaps do not wish to do so, or at least do not have clear historical grounds for doing so, is significant.
It is true that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have less of a problem with post-schism "ecumenical" councils, but this is not true across the board. There is a tendency amongst some Eastern Orthodox to refer to at least one of the Palamite Councils held in the middle of the 14th century as "ecumenical," as evidenced by the citations found in this document. Even so, Dvornik's aforementioned work points out the same hesitancy to attribute ecumenicity to any council after the schism in Eastern writers as well. I will not push this point as forcefully with the EOC, due to the fact that (1) the EOC does not have the prevalence of ecumenical councils that the RCC does, and (2) a good portion of the dogma proclaimed at these councils, particularly at the Palamite councils, has a very strong pre-schism foundation and is not typically viewed as a crucial point of disagreement between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches (this is a claim, of course, that many may have a problem with, but the purpose of this blog is to eventually argue this out in later posts). Even so, I will insist that it will likely have to eventually be agreed that these councils were not "ecumenical" in the fullest sense of the word, for they did not ever receive papal ratification -- an element which, as I will later argue, was almost (though perhaps not always, without qualification) a condition of a council's ecumenicity -- and they were never recognized by the Roman Church, a church which was, prior to the schism, considered an essential element of the "pentarchy" of churches necessary for an ecumenical council. (In case one thinks I am being unfair to the Orthodox here, I should also point out that the same sort of reasoning applies to the post-schism Western councils -- none of them were received by the "pentarchy" either.) It is my contention that all of this will have significance in later discussions of doctrine.
Why do I push the significance of the non-ecumenicity of these post-schism councils? A suspicious reader may legitimately wonder if I am going to end up trying to contend that one side was simply wrong in one of its conciliar definitions. While I could perhaps attempt to argue that case, I will not. Instead, my claim is this: the way to union is allowing that each side has, since the schism, formed legitimate expressions of dogma that may be held by anyone as valid theological opinion (theologoumena), but that may not -- until, perhaps, an eventual and truly ecumenical council is held -- be declared as universally binding dogma. In future articles, it will likely become clear why I say this. For starters, I think that it is the only way -- particularly when it comes to trenchant debates such as that surrounding the filioque -- to get beyond polemic and really get to the issues that are essential and that are not. I hope that this does not sound too "watered down" and syncretistic to the reader; as will hopefully become evident from my later posts, I do not intend to dodge the difficult issues or to say "both sides are really saying the same thing in different language." I think that the simple facts borne out by the history of the debate and the present state of things is that, manifestly, the RCC and the EOC sometimes just are -- perhaps to the chagrin of some overly-enthusiastic ecumenists -- saying different things. The point that I will be making is that these different things they are saying, understood rightly, are neither dogmatically binding nor clearly unacceptable. It is in this spirit that I will cite the following words of Eastern Orthodox Father Alexander Webster, a priest whom I knew personally (from his article, Proceeding Toward Reunion at Last: Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, CRISIS Magazine, April 2000):
I agree with Fr. Alexander's assessment. I only note that, based on some of his statements, he seems potentially unaware of the history I just mentioned prior to his words. A fuller awareness of that history, along with a willingness to truly understand the differences in theological opinion on each side, may open the way to union at last. At least, such is my hope, and such is my prayer.
The reader is asked to oblige the fact that my main contention will sound rather pessimistic: issues are likely not going to be worked out at all if neither side is willing to "budge." By "budge," I certainly do not mean a compromise of faith; each side must be respected to the fullest extent possible. At the same time, however, there must be at least a willingness toward self-examination and toward charitably considering the other side. It will become more apparent what I mean if I stop beating around the bush and simply address what I think is a source for many of the difficulties between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox interlocutors: the status of post-schism councils.
This point will likely affect the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter, RCC) more significantly than the Eastern Orthodox Church (hereafter, EOC), due to two factors: first, a prevalence of post-schism councils, and second, an eventual willingness to consider said councils "ecumenical." It is a well-known fact that the RCC has held a number of doctrinal councils (i.e., councils addressing doctrine) after its separation -- a phrasing which, I should add, is not meant to assert a responsibility for said separation -- from the Eastern churches: namely, the Fourth Lateran, Lyons, Florence, Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. What is perhaps not so well-known is that the tendency to identify such councils as "ecumenical" did not perhaps arise until the time of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, circa 1586-1593 AD. Before that time, as is well-documented by Eastern Catholic historian Francis Dvornik in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies and elsewhere (see, for example, his work on the Photian Schism), it was common, even after the schism between East and West, for the RCC to maintain that only the first seven agreed-upon councils were ecumenical. This fact is even reflected in the early post-schism professions of faith which were recited by newly-elected popes -- a point I emphasize because it may be of some special significance for Roman Catholic readers. What Dvornik and others have drawn from all of this is that it is not clear which councils beyond the seven, if any, are to be regarded as truly ecumenical; at least it does not seem to be a matter of dogma which councils are regarded as such (the fact that Robert Bellarmine simply began calling later councils such in his own private works -- works which were, it should be noted, situated in a context aimed at defending the RCC against Protestantism, and which were thus centered around mostly Western church interests -- is hardly grounds for dogma). Lending support to all of this is another lesser-known fact: namely, that Pope Paul VI stated, in a message commemorating the aforementioned Council of Lyons, that "the Council of Lyons was the sixth of the general synods held in the West" (the source for this is Unite Chretienne, February 1975, p. 15); the fact that he did not call this council "ecumenical" is not only significant because of his place as Pope and because of the fact that he said this at Lyons, but also because the Council of Lyons even had some (very small) Eastern presence and was supposed to have been a union council between East and West. Though the "union" at Lyons was eventually rejected by the East, it is at least one of the post-schism councils that the RCC would be more likely to regard as ecumenical and to regard as potentially binding on the Orthodox in the event of eventual reunion, should they wish to do so. The fact that they perhaps do not wish to do so, or at least do not have clear historical grounds for doing so, is significant.
It is true that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have less of a problem with post-schism "ecumenical" councils, but this is not true across the board. There is a tendency amongst some Eastern Orthodox to refer to at least one of the Palamite Councils held in the middle of the 14th century as "ecumenical," as evidenced by the citations found in this document. Even so, Dvornik's aforementioned work points out the same hesitancy to attribute ecumenicity to any council after the schism in Eastern writers as well. I will not push this point as forcefully with the EOC, due to the fact that (1) the EOC does not have the prevalence of ecumenical councils that the RCC does, and (2) a good portion of the dogma proclaimed at these councils, particularly at the Palamite councils, has a very strong pre-schism foundation and is not typically viewed as a crucial point of disagreement between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches (this is a claim, of course, that many may have a problem with, but the purpose of this blog is to eventually argue this out in later posts). Even so, I will insist that it will likely have to eventually be agreed that these councils were not "ecumenical" in the fullest sense of the word, for they did not ever receive papal ratification -- an element which, as I will later argue, was almost (though perhaps not always, without qualification) a condition of a council's ecumenicity -- and they were never recognized by the Roman Church, a church which was, prior to the schism, considered an essential element of the "pentarchy" of churches necessary for an ecumenical council. (In case one thinks I am being unfair to the Orthodox here, I should also point out that the same sort of reasoning applies to the post-schism Western councils -- none of them were received by the "pentarchy" either.) It is my contention that all of this will have significance in later discussions of doctrine.
Why do I push the significance of the non-ecumenicity of these post-schism councils? A suspicious reader may legitimately wonder if I am going to end up trying to contend that one side was simply wrong in one of its conciliar definitions. While I could perhaps attempt to argue that case, I will not. Instead, my claim is this: the way to union is allowing that each side has, since the schism, formed legitimate expressions of dogma that may be held by anyone as valid theological opinion (theologoumena), but that may not -- until, perhaps, an eventual and truly ecumenical council is held -- be declared as universally binding dogma. In future articles, it will likely become clear why I say this. For starters, I think that it is the only way -- particularly when it comes to trenchant debates such as that surrounding the filioque -- to get beyond polemic and really get to the issues that are essential and that are not. I hope that this does not sound too "watered down" and syncretistic to the reader; as will hopefully become evident from my later posts, I do not intend to dodge the difficult issues or to say "both sides are really saying the same thing in different language." I think that the simple facts borne out by the history of the debate and the present state of things is that, manifestly, the RCC and the EOC sometimes just are -- perhaps to the chagrin of some overly-enthusiastic ecumenists -- saying different things. The point that I will be making is that these different things they are saying, understood rightly, are neither dogmatically binding nor clearly unacceptable. It is in this spirit that I will cite the following words of Eastern Orthodox Father Alexander Webster, a priest whom I knew personally (from his article, Proceeding Toward Reunion at Last: Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, CRISIS Magazine, April 2000):
"There is no room here to rehearse the arguments for and against that pesky term [filioque] . . . The key to a solution to this impasse lies, ironically, in the most egregious instance of filioquist imperialism [Ed.: I do not necessarily stand by this preceding assessment]: the Council of Ferrara/Florence in 1438 to 1439 . . . As long as the Council of Ferrara/Florence is deemed 'ecumenical' and therefore doctrinally binding on the worldwide Church, reunion between Rome and the Orthodox is impossible.
"If, however, Rome were to downgrade that council -- and the Council of Lyons, which in A.D. 1274 issued a similar decree including the filioque -- from ecumenical to a regional council of the Patriarchate of the West; if the doctrinal statements produced by those councils and the five councils before Lyons and those after Ferrara/Florence were relegated to the status of theologoumenon (respectable theological opinion) instead of dogma (revealed truth) . . . the Orthodox Churches would have no compelling theological reason to perpetuate the schism between Rome and Orthodoxy. For then Rome would, with such confident humility and genuine servanthood, have demonstrated its true primacy among the Churches."
I agree with Fr. Alexander's assessment. I only note that, based on some of his statements, he seems potentially unaware of the history I just mentioned prior to his words. A fuller awareness of that history, along with a willingness to truly understand the differences in theological opinion on each side, may open the way to union at last. At least, such is my hope, and such is my prayer.
posted by Iason | 5:34 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nektarios,
No, I haven't read that one; it's on my list of about 12 billion books to read. :) I have, however, read Papadakis' Crisis in Byzantium, which covers in detail a smaller portion of that time period, namely the time from about the Council of Lyons to the aftermath of the Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae (basically, the latter half of the 13th century). It also deals extensively with the filioque -- in fact, the filioque issue is basically the theme of the entire book -- and I found it quite interesting. You will most likely see its influence in coming posts if you continue to follow my blog.
Thanks very much for the suggestion!
Maximos
Post a Comment
<< Home