I think in some way, VII does try to open up a channel with the ancient churches, like the Orthodox Church, as in some way part of the Church, but not perfectly so. If you know something about me in these forums, I take ecclesiology very seriously, because it is understanding what is correct ecclesiology that makes the Church be *the* Church. At the most basic level, both Orthodox and Catholic have a clerical system of bishop/presbyter/deacon that is recognizable and can be dealt with on a legitimate basis. Theologically, it seems to me that we worship the same Christ and the same Trinity. Even "Filioque", it seems that many Catholics today are suggesting there is a semantic issue more than a substantial dogmatic difference (even though if you listen to the likes of Fr. Thomas Hopko, he says that although today it might be semantic, that wasn't the case over the last ten or so centuries). I haven't really studied in depth the history of every single disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church, but the one thing I have (and continue) studied is ecclesiology, and here is why I think you should consider studying ecclesiology as a form of getting close to Christ.
In marriage, you are to make an image of the Church. You will be Christ, the priest of the household, and your wife will be the image of the Church, the body of Christ in the household. The question then comes if I am to be a true image, is it necessary that this image is connected to Rome? What can I learn from the spirituality of this image into the practicality of my relationship with Christ and with my wife? Rather than look for a way to have spouses keep their Church, how is it that we unite ourselves together and not remain divided in Christ? One question you can ask yourself, if you truly love Christ, did Christ allow the gates of Hades to prevail against the Church? If you believe Christ, then you must be under a unified structure, or else the gates of Hades may also prevail against your household as well.
In the Roman Church, it is essential that the "One Holy Catholic Church" is defined by communion with Rome. In the Orthodox Church, Rome is not essential, but correct Orthodox faith and practice. The "rock" that Peter is is not merely based on His person, but on His faith, and we too embody the authority of Peter in our three-part clerical system: episcopos, presbyteros, and deaconos. St. Ignatius of Antioch (a very direct successor to St. Peter, and knew St. Peter well) teaches us "without these, there can be no assembly of God", ecclesia of God, or Church of God. Furthermore, we fall upon the sin of sectarianism when we have to define ourselves by a specific disciple of a specific ancient metropolis. St. Paul cautioned us not to call ourselves "the Church of Cepha", or "the Church of Apollo" or "the Church of Paul", but "the Church of Christ" or "the Church of God". That does not lessen the importance of Apostolic succession, nor does it lessen St. Peter's leadership among the Apostles, but the grace St. Peter received was extended to all the Apostles (compare Matthew 18 to Matthew 16), and in turn, given to the clergy who succeeded the Apostles.
VII teaches that the Catholic Church is the worldwide universal Church, with the head of the Church being the bishop of Rome. St. Ignatius and the Orthodox Church teaches that the Catholic Church is not the worldwide Church, but the Church where the bishop is. Where every bishop is, there is the Catholic Chuch, "kata holicos", or according to the whole. If Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem are destroyed, but the bishop of the small rural town in Canada is still around, there is the Catholic Church still, because no city is necessary. Rather the Eucharistic assembly is necessary, for just as a piece of bread symbolizes the fullness of the body of Christ a congregant can eat and commune, so can the Church headed by a bishop be the fullness of that Church mystically.
So I strongly disagree with the ecclesiology of the Roman Church as presented by VII. It relies unrealistically and impractically (and unOrthodoxly) too much on one person and one city of the world. It's too confined to the world, rather than making the Church an image of the Kingdom of Heaven. If the Church is not of this world, then rather than being called a "Roman Church" or a "Coptic Church", the correct thing to say is "The Catholic Church" that happens to be inside Rome or "The Catholic Church" that happens to be inside Egypt. There is a lot of implications once you change the terminology in such a fashion.
We do have a lot of agreements in the area of ecclesiology, don't get me wrong. But I want to emphasize this particular issue, and I do highly recommend Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk's book "His Broken Body" who goes into a lot of detail (available as an ebook on Amazon and iTunes).
Theology and spirituality are always intertwined. Those who treat theology like a mental exercise, as the ancient scholastics did, are in fact blaspheming theology. At the same time, I do not want you to fall to the other extreme of thinking that theology is unimportant compared to my spiritual life with Christ. To me, that just sounds like "why can't I just be Protestant?" at least in my personal experience. Theology is a way of appreciating your spiritual and practical life. Theology is to pray to God with attentiveness and understanding as well as in reverent awe and fear.
You probably know that the relationship of the Bishop of Rome, and of the Vatican in general, to the rest of the Catholic Church is a topic of discussion even among Catholics!
Really, “Church of Rome” probably isn’t the best of terms since, strictly speaking, it refers to the diocese of Rome rather than to the conglomerate of local Churches that are in dogmatic union with the Church of Rome. I was trying to be unambiguous; “Catholic Church” is problematic, too, though, for other reasons.
I’ve no doubt that, historically, many views of the Chacedonian schism have been in play—that goes for a wide array of theological concepts, of course.
I don’t think the West uses the imagery of the husband as “priest”. We don’t have crownings or such. (I think the pre-V2 wedding rite had more such “pomp” than our modern rite—alas—does.)
Do you think your (and others’) arguments against the “Roman model” of understanding Petrine primacy are unanswered? What would a “devil’s advocate” response to your assertion be? I don’t have a background in Patristics and can’t comment intelligently on what St. Ignatius of Antioch said (other than that I recall his saying that the bishop was necessary) or what his contemporaries or short-term successors may have added. Were I to take a stab, though, I would wonder if this may be an instance of “ongoing revelation”, a theology that, like Aquinas’s models for understanding the Eucharist, simply took definitive form later, even as it is (arguably) recognizable in a different form in the early Church. There certainly is not unanimity in all modern Catholic teachings among all of the saints whom we venerate; as I recall, Aquinas himself denied the Immaculate Conception.
I wonder, actually, if this all may indeed be “different strokes for different folks”. Protestantism and secularism seem to affect Western Christianity much more than they do the Orthodox. If the West did not have a centralized “tie-breaker” in the Bishop of Rome, perhaps we would have splintered in many more ways than we did from Luther & Co. I mean, goodness, I know “Catholics”—and many of them!—who believe the Church should recognize same-sex unions and female clergy, allow abortions, and grant marital nullity decrees basically willy-nilly … to say nothing of the perennial hot-button topic of contraception. Our recent Synod on the Family revealed an awful lot of divergence even among our episcopate on pretty fundamental ideas of family and marriage. Perhaps, ok, that is God’s punishment for our heterodoxy, or maybe it’s a vestige of our centuries of being essentially intertwined with secular government—or, maybe that’s exactly why we in the West do need the Pope as leader.
I’ll grab the Cleenewerk. Looks interesting. I’m a bit suspicious of Cdl. Kasper, but hey.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this subject. I hope my comments do not raise another red flag. The truth is we all want perfect union. But I wish to reply to some of comments.
First, I like to reiterate Minasoliman's comments that the Roman Catholic Church's dogmatizing of every issue under the sun opens them to heresy and unnecessary claims and positions. I will add that the net result usually ends with some form of back paddling. Take for example your reference of
Catechism in #838:
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who
are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the
successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
How can a church say one who doesn't profess our faith in entirety or has not preserved unity under the successor of Peter has a communion nonetheless and that communion ”is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness"? One can't say we know other churches have communion with Christ and but they have an imperfect communion, unless one defines perfect communion as communion under the Roman Catholic Church. If the latter is the case, then there was no need to say other churches who have not preserved unity under the successor of Peter have a communion.
In addition, from this whole thread, you seem to show that all the criteria Roman Catecesis allows for the other churches to profess the fullness of faith (such as faith in the Trinity, baptism, priesthood, interfaith marriages) are more easily found in the Protestant churches than the Coptic Church. (Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopal. Even though Protestant sacraments are ceremonial in nature, they still have Eucharist and baptism, etc). If such is the case, then Catechesis 838 is misleading at best.
Maybe the Catholic catechesis addressed these ambiguous definitions of communion, fullness of faith and profoundness elsewhere.
Second, you wrote "For us, at least, a sacrament is a sacrament per its form merely. For example, I can baptize anyone, such as in a state of emergency, even regardless of whether they desire it or not. That’s definitely not normal for us , but it’s consistent with the idea that the sacrament is efficacious independent of the individual’s action/thought or lack thereof: it’s God who works rather than we."
Not even Christ baptized anyone by force regardless of whether they desired it or not. It seems the fact that Roman Catholic Church (and most EO churches) allow this loophole, shows a lack of sacrament form. There can't be a sacrament if the sacrament’s form is "anything under the sun" without specific requirements to that form. Some Protestant Churches have the same loophole (layperson baptizing in the Trinitarian formula in emergency). By your definition, their Protestant sacrament is a sacrament per its form merely.
Third. You wrote, "Of what salvific significance is it if I believe that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and from the Son versus from the Father alone, or that the Bishop of Rome is, by virtue of his office, Christ’s very Vicar on earth, as opposed to an honorary “first among equals”? Personally, I can’t see it as a “sine qua non” to be united on these matters, which seem, to laypeople, much more of theological than of practical, day-to-day import."
The problem here is that you are building a false dichotomy between theologians and laypeople. All laypeople must be theologians (that is think and live the faith intellectually) and all theologians must be simply laypeople (that is live the faith piously). No one can live piously without making an intellectual and theological decision to pursue Christ. The two cannot be separated. Papal infallibility and the Assumption of Mary are ex cathedra declarations of the Catholic Church. The fifth condition of ex cathedra declarations is that "must be held by the whole Church". Therefore, the layperson cannot be united to the Roman Catholic Church if he does not hold it as "sine qua non". In fact, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:
“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.” (emphasis added).
One could argue that a Catholic who marries a non-Catholic does not necessarily deny or doubt the doctrines of papal infallibility and the Assumption of Mary. He simply chooses to submerges them into a subset of non-essential matters. However, even if one allows the possibility of such submergence, when you marry the two become one. Your other half will not believe in essential Roman Catholic faith. Since the two are one, you have not only submerged essential Catholic theological doctrine, but you have essential fallen away from the Catholic faith by marrying a non-Catholic. Therefore it is of the same salvific significance to believe in essential Roman Catholic theological doctrine, as it is to have any marriage sacrament. The only thing one can do to reconcile is back paddle again to either state that ex cathedra declarations are not really essential or to say marriage to a non-Catholic makes one fall away from the Catholic faith.
Again, I am not saying this to insult the Catholic faith. I truly think union is possible and essential. Minatasgeel has answered the original question. There cannot be true Orthodox marriage if one expects to ignore essential theology. This is the position of the Orthodox Church. Minasoliman convincingly attempted to show why one particular Catholic doctrine is incompatible with Orthodoxy. My sense from your comments and from others is that some were trying to argue theology is meaningless at the grassroots daily living of Catholics and non-Catholics. This is view point is extremely dangerous and outright illogical.
Here is an extract from Bishop Youssef's response:
"Marriage is one of the Church's mysteries through which a man and a women unite becoming no longer two, but one. To be one in everything, they need to hold the exact same faith, not only in our Lord Jesus Christ; but also in the Church's dogmas. "
OK - so what if 2 coptic christians marry and 1 person has a flawed understanding of his/her faith that the other one may not share. A good example is this: What if 2 Coptic Christians are getting married, and one truly believes that He has eating the Life Giving Body of Christ, and another believes that is the Divine Life Giving Body. That Christ's Divinity didn't depart from the Eucharist.
Both are about to get married and yet their faith, on something essential is drastically different. Its even different to the point that the Coptic Church has had to excommunicate certain people of its stance on such a topic.
So ultimately, the 2, although both being Coptic, may not share the exact same faith. If having the exact faith is that important, should the Church insist that both candidates for marriage take a Coptic Theology Course before embarking on marriage? Or should each one's walk with Christ be sufficient?? You see where this is going? Now then, what if a Catholic happens to believe that its only the Life Giving Body of Christ that they partake, and not the "Divine" life Giving Body. That would mean that the Catholic person would share something more in common of the Coptic Christian's faith than their potential spouse.
The question now is this:
(which is my argument): How essential is it to your faith (your development in Christ) whether the Bishop of Rome is the head of all Churches? How essential is it to your walk with Christ whether St Mary was Immaculate or not?? Surely the "essential" aspect of someone's faith lies with the importance they put on the Holy Communion.
I really don't understand what you mean by "What if 2 Coptic Christians are getting married, and one truly believes that He has eating the Life Giving Body of Christ, and another believes that is the Divine Life Giving Body. That Christ's Divinity didn't depart from the Eucharist."
What is the difference between eating the Life giving body of Christ and the divine Life Giving Body, unless you are implying someone believes they are eating a divine life-giving body that is not Christ's? Christ's body is life-giving and divine and His divinity never parted from the eucharist. Are you saying one of the two Coptic Christians do not believe this and the other does?
If so, then I would say the Coptic Christian in this marriage is at fault. I assume they are already married. In which case, it is not permissible to divorce but correction is needed or they will loose their salvation. If they are not married, then the Copt who does understand correct theology should run like his life depended on it (because it literally does).
Now to your question, It is extremely essential to my faith if the Bishop of Rome claims he supersedes all Orthodox theology and scriptural evidence that there is no papal infallibility or papal primacy. If St Mary is immaculate, then she didn't need salvation and she lied when she "My Savior". It also means that I will treat St Mary as a demigod of some sort. True eucharistic communion cannot occur if there is no communion in faith. Period. You can dance around it all you want but then you trivialize all the scriptures, the patristic writings, everything that has been passed down from the Apostles and the Logos Himself (Matthew 25, John 6).
I'm not sure if you are aware, but there was a huge debate in our Church over this issue. H.H Pope Shenouda III (May The Lord repose his soul) rebuked Coptic Orthodox Christians who believed that they were partaking of the Divine body. Check previous forums on this topic. If you think that you are partaking of the Divine Body of Christ, you are gravely mistaken (according to the Church!). So, would another Coptic girl see you as a heretic??? Is that how we should view one another?? no! Its not! (I hope not!), but its beginning to resemble how we see Catholics!
My point is simply that even 2 Coptic Christians may not share the exact same faith: They differ! They may even be ignorant of the correct faith. The fact that you are baptised in the same Church doesn't necessarily give you the correct Theological nor soteriological understanding of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Hence, in the spiritual life, you need to take the essentials.
I agree with you, in that I do not agree with the Immaculate Conception Dogma, nor Filoque, nor Purgatory, nor the primacy of the Bishop of Rome; but these are less essential than the other things such as:
a) The importance of the Eucharist. Is this really the Body of Christ that gives life to everyone? Yes or No? Can 2 people base their spiritual life on this knowledge and their marriage be focused on this commonality?
b) The purpose of Holy Communion is to grow in spirit, not knowledge: i think there is a hierarchy of essentials that is needed for 2 people to consider their faith the same, and that is the importance of the 7 sacraments and the fact that we receive the life giving graces THROUGH the sacraments.
Remi: you and I were both baptised in the Coptic Church.You believe in the Divine Body of Christ in the Eucharist. I believe that we cannot eat divinity and this is a heresy. I believe that we partake of the Life Giving Body of Christ (as stipulated by the Synod in the December Edition of the Keraza 2006).
We are not married, yet we are both Copts. Can you marry a girl who thought this way? Abouna would let you get married to a girl who believed like me, but would stop you from marrying a Catholic because you differed on other stuff??
Do you not see my point?? What difference does it make?? Is it the knowledge of God that you are after or is it KNOWING God that you want in a wife??
Zoxsasi, you wrote "H.H Pope Shenouda III (May The Lord repose his soul) rebuked Christians who believed that they were partaking of the Divine body. Check previous forums on this topic. If you think that you are partaking of the Divine Body of Christ, you are gravely mistaken (according to the Church!)."
Look at our recent discussion in the thread "The Deification of Man, HH Pope Shenouda III" (I don' know how to hyperlink that thread here). Notice how we have constantly said HH Pope Shenouda was wrong when he denied theosis. I disagree that if I believe in the divine body of Christ in the eucharist, then I am mistaken according to the church. The Church doctrine has always upheld theosis, even when HH Pope Shenouda did not. And as it currently stands, you will be very hard pressed to find a priest or bishop who denies theosis. Some may exist, but your view of theosis is not the official belief of the Coptic Church.
To answer your question, if you were a girl who believes in that there is no theosis, then I can't and I don't want to marry you. Now hypothetically, if a Coptic couple was in this same situation where one denied theosis, then properly held Cana/Marriage preparation meetings and honest confession with the priest would reveal the problem. In this case, no Abouna would marry this couple anyways.
There is no difference with the knowledge of God and knowing God. You are building another false dichotomy. To know God is to have knowledge of God, that is the Holy Spirit. "No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Cor 12:3. Now if you mean that you can know God but not experience God, that is true. But without knowing who God is, how do you know what you are experiencing is God? All the heretics claimed they experienced God, but they obviously were mistaken.
Finally, I don't believe there is such a thing as essential vs. non-essential belief. All beliefs are part of your faith. There is either truth or there isn't truth. You're either an Orthodox Christian or you're not. Creating degrees or levels of importance serves only to politicize one's opinion of one's faith. In essence, one who has degrees of faith is cherry picking what he wants to value and what he does not want to value. This is no different than Protestantism and it is incapable of stability. (Notice how many modern Protestants are accepting Arianism, Nestoriansim, Apollaniarinism, etc. It's not a coincidence. It is the result of categorizing your beliefs on desires and emotions, rather then the truth.
Oh dear! Where do I begin?? I love you very much, but I disagree with you on many aspects here; and I feel they are quite grave:
1. So if I understand correctly, you disagree with H.H Pope Shenouda on Theosis? That's OK with me, I don't mind, but as you can see that within our OWN Church, good devout Christians, such as yourself, differ with their own Pope. And then to make matters sweet, you are telling me that what matters is truth? And if I understand you correctly, you believe that you have the fullness of truth and the catholics do not, so hence its best not to marry them.
You can stand here and tell us that your Pope is wrong, and yet your faith is right? and that of the Catholics is wrong? Does this not lead you to be a bit more humble when it comes to the truth? what is "humility" when I think I have the absolute truth? How can I express that?
2. You mention that there is no essential vs non essential beliefs that one can have. This is wrong. Why? Because I, as a Coptic Orthodox Christian, were to travel to no man's land, where there would be NO Church, the Coptic Church would tell me the following:
-> Go and find any Oriental Orthodox Sister Church and have communion there.
--> If you can't, go and find any Eastern Orthodox Church and have communion there.
--> If you can't, go and find any Catholic Church, and have communion there.
--> If you can't, go and find any Anglican High Church and have communion there.
--> If there are no Churches where you can have Holy Communion, either pray in your home, and follow the readings in your home as with your Church; or assist any evangelical prayer meetings.
You see? There are essentials here. What is the most essential?? Its the HOLY COMMUNION!
Did the Church say to me: "OK! You're in no man's land, REMEMBER: EVERYONE ELSE IS LOST, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SAVED, DO NOT FORGET THAT WE DONT BELIEVE IN PURGATORY, FILOQUE or LIMBO"?
Or did my FoC tell me to find a way to have the Holy Communion??
That means there are things "essential" for salvation. The Filoque / Immaculate Conception /purgatory, etc are dogmas that are not essential for my salvation.
Are there essential things for salvation - of course! If I were going to die tomorrow, I'd like to have the Holy Communion and a priest to confess my sins to. Why? Those are the essential 2 things required for salvation!
3. Now, its wrong to belittle the truths we have. Im not doing that, nor am I neglecting them - but if the truths we share between us (as in we are ONE CHURCH) are already different, then why on earth go and pick on the differences between us and the Catholics , and then go to the point of discussing marriage and say "Well, 2 people should have exactly the same faith when they get married". We are TWO Coptic people and we do not even have the exact same faith. You are even openly saying that H.H Pope Shenouda III was wrong in his understanding of salvation.
4. There is no difference with the Knowledge of God and Knowing God. (You are SO wrong here)
Where do I begin?. The knowledge of God is having knowledge about Him. I met this homosexual atheist in a party once; he knew theology so well. He knew all the heresies, he talked to me about theosis, he talked to me about the Coptic Church. But after talking to him, I said: "OK! So you are a Christian?" - he said: "No.. I'm gay. I don't believe in God.. I just studied Theology as a hobby".
This is the knowledge of God.
Knowing God is different. Do you KNOW God??
To prove my point , there's a video of Fr Athony Messiha explaining the EXACT same thing:
Has anyone seen the Video of Abouna Anthony Messiha talking about the Knowledge of God? Its a video where he starts by going through all the books in the Bible, repeating them in the correct order. Everyone claps for him. At the end he says: "GOD DOES NOT CARE FOR THAT. GOD DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THIS".. and explains the difference between knowledge of God and KNOWING God.
With all due respect, Fr Anthony Messiha is not a person I would engaged in a meaningful discussion. I will leave it at that. Regardless, what you described about the atheist is exactly what I said before. I wrote above " Now if you mean that you can know God but not experience God, that is true." There is a difference between knowing God and experiencing God. So I am not disagreeing with you. Where I disagree is that statement that there is a difference between knowing God and knowledge of God. There is no difference. The same word, know/knowledge is being used, to describe two different things. Semantically, this is false. What you were describing and what the atheist described is the difference between knowing and experiencing, not knowing and knowing.
I do not claim I have the fullness of truth. Only Christ has the fullness of Truth. All I know is that ignoring the differences in theology in marriage is not simply a matter of theologizing. It is essential to have one faith. Otherwise, how can one say "As for me and MY FAMILY, we will follow the Lord." And if one is lax in how they understand theology, then there is absolutely nothing wrong for a Copt or a RC or an EO to marry an atheist or a homosexual or a Protestant or a Jew or a Muslim either - since theology in a marriage is non-essential. In the end, we will only end trampling the Scriptures, the patristic writings and the Faith handed down to us from Christ through the Apostles.
Regarding your Point #2. The Coptic Church and any Orthodox Church allows for economy. But an exception is not the rule. Communion with Christ is based on faith. This includes doctrine. Otherwise, go have communion with an Arian or Nestorian or modern day Protestants who don't even believe in a sacrament.
At this point, I think we are going in circular arguments. The topic was on a Catholic marrying a Copt and its ramifications, not theosis, not semantics of knowing vs. knowledge and not what HH Pope Shenouda or the current Coptic Synod believes. I was willing to entertain some tangents to see if it supports RomanNomad's position, but I don't think it does. I appreciate Minatasgeel giving us some space to have this discussion when he specifically said he wouldn't tolerate it. I hope Mina can forgive me.
I hope we can still have a discussion that benefits all.
Have any of the Bishops actually come out publicly and stated corrections or clarifications concerning Theosis and HH's book? I would imagine that unless the Synod or a few of our Bishops begin using the term and teaching about it, there will be continual misunderstanding about what Theosis is.
I am a bit late to this thread, having just found this site, so I realize this may go unread. At any rate, congratulations on your planned marriage.
I was a sincere, serious-minded, practicing Roman Catholic for nearly a quarter of a century, until I discovered the authenticity and Grace of Orthodoxy a few years ago. I wish to share a thought: if your wife were to adopt the same stance towards other 'men' as your church does towards other 'religions', how long do you think your marriage would last? to believe in everything, is to believe in nothing. I hope this is not the case with you. I am familiar with the turf from which you display your church's gushing 'openness'. I have lived on both sides of the fence that Vatican II erected... modernist and traditionalist. I would most strongly encourage you to remember God's Providence as you think about the love you bear towards this Coptic woman, and her entry into your life. Your relationship with God has to do with an eternal context... your marriage, if I understand correctly, occurs in a temporal context. Demonstrate your love for her by respecting and learning about her ancient and Orthodox Faith... one which sees her brothers and sisters in the Mideast being murdered/martyred regularly. If we fail in humility, you or I, we will find all doors closed but the exits. Please accept this advice as sincerely given...from a husband of 35 years and a father of 5 children; and 8 grandchildren.
I'm not sure if you still frequent the boards here. Sorry for my super super late response, but I hope to at least add some thought to the last post you wrote.
First you asked "devil's advocate", which I think is a very good and thoughtful question. Very few times we tend to answer something thinking we got the final answer and the other side is just blind to know the answer. I try to anticipate at least what the response is, and if I'm unable, well, that's what a discussion is for.
I don't mind the "development of dogma" idea, but I think there is a nuance between the way you use it and the way I might personally use it. To me, "development of dogma" is a further clarification of an already held or practiced belief in the Church. So, the example of the Eucharist I would disagree because it is clear both Scripturally and immediately afterwards from the earliest Patristic sources, truly this is the body and blood of Christ. Now, all this "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation" and all that jazz is to me philosophizing beyond what is necessary for the belief of the Eucharist. We need to keep things simple. I think EOs have done the same mistake as well. Maybe we as OOs might also dabble in a little bit of philosophizing in some parts. But what we need to do is rather than philosophize on every single practice, we need to accept as is in simple minds the MYSTERY of the Eucharist, and that has always been held from the old times. I would take it perhaps further to refute any idea that a piece of bread is a "piece of the flesh of Christ" in a cannibalistic sense, or that I only partake of humanity, rather than the divine, or life-giving humanity of Christ, since this can be implied, even though not developed clearly as maybe later on in centuries following.
So what's the "devil's advocate"? Patristic sources. The RCs will quote from church fathers how much the bishop of Rome is praised and is depended on for the unity of the worldwide Church. They would then say, "see, the Church always believed in the Papal infallibility". But I would answer and say, what bishops and saints say and what the churches do are two different things. We had a habit of conflating a praise to someone to the point of hyperbole (and likewise we did the same in condemnation of certain peoples in hyperbolic ways). But the Pope of Rome was liable to the judgements of the rest of the Church even if he disagreed. He was forced to agree that Constantinople is "New Rome". He was forced (or to be honest, on this point, he was even physically beaten) to agree that the "Three Chapters" must be categorically condemned. His judgments at times were criticized, like the earliest case of the Quartodeciman controversy. He has many times sought the guidance of other bishops, especially Alexandria. Many times, the same hyperbolic praise is offered to our patriarchs as well (and also our Christian Roman emperors received the same hyperbolic praise, even to the point of calling them "divine" as one of their titles, and were seen as equal figures for Church unity, like the bishop of Rome). Gregory of Rome has once said that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch represent "one Petrine see", which sorta defeats the purpose of Rome solely being the arbiter of all churches.
In the end, we as Orthodox say Rome received the leadership it did because of the fact that it is the political world capital, much like Washington DC is today, and its bishop has had a good history of being steadfast in the Christian Orthodox faith. But just as the praises can be found in emperors and other bishops, we do not dogmatize the need for an emperor or for a bishop of Alexandria. We dogmatize the need for a bishop as Christ has established, no matter where he is. God forbid, but if Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were all gone and destroyed, and no churches were left, we still have the bishops of NYC, London, Paris, Melbourne, and Kerala to take the Apostolic mantle and have the Church continue by the grace of God. And this is where I am convinced that not only is it unnecessary to dogmatize Roman Primacy/Infallibility, but to do so would be to miss the point of proper ecclesiology. Rome was an accident in life, but the bishop is not. Even the figures in the Bible are not "dogmas". Christ can find other Pauls, and St. Jacob of Serug said if there was anyone more worthy than Mary, that person would have been chosen as the Theotokos. They are etched in history now, but they are not dogmas. They are, in a sense, the appropriate chosen ones, the embodiment of the virtues Christ was looking for, not necessarily that it has to be exactly them. "Theotokos" is dogma, and I might even say to venerate her is also dogma, but to say that without Mary there would be no Christ is something I strongly disagree with. In essence to say that the pope of Rome is infallible is to say the Church cannot have a truly fulfilling spiritual life without this, and that there would be no Church or Christ without the Pope of Rome.
Perhaps the Western churches do need that type of ecclesiology. But this should not be based on a dogmatic basis, but on a pastoral need that effects the circumstances it lives in. As you can see, the Eastern Churches do not have this pastoral need to have a central infallible figure. But I would think we can make canons to determine who would be arbiter among patriarchs in the future to avoid the need for "imperially-dependent" councils as we did in the past. But this arbiter would not be a sole infallible source of dogma for the Church, but a great convener to bring together a conciliar approach to solve our everyday problems of the world the Church deals with. This again is not a dogmatically held arbiter, but a pastoral need. And if we praise this arbiter patriarch as if he was the only one called "the new Peter" and "the unity of the Church" and "the 8th archangel" and "the 13th Apostle", we do so as a form of hyperbolic praise, not as a dogma. All bishops are "the new Peter", "the unity of the Church", "the 13th Apostle", etc. Those are dogmatic for every bishop, not for one patriarch.
Hope all is going well with you. Sorry again for the lateness. I also have one PM from January that I haven't responded to as well that I'm going to try to do now. :P
I am grateful for everyone’s replies on this thread. I have learned quite a bit from folks here!
Mina’s last response touches on the idea that even we on this thread might simply have such a different set of “tools” for communicating on these topics that it is hard to discern similarities apart from divergences.
On “we need to keep things simple” … I personally think that God gives us rational minds for the precise purpose of “reaching out” to Him who is infinite wisdom, infinite logic, perfect reason. In the same way in which a procreating couple “reaches out” to God by imitating his creative work in effecting a new human being, the rational mind, in analyzing parts of the faith, can be similarly “reaching out”. Are such distinctions as consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation fundamental for salvation? I certainly hope not since I imagine most believers don’t grasp the full theological significance of these concepts—including myself! But, I think there *are* some whose purpose *is* to do that kind of thinking.
The Church in the West hasn’t been under widespread, systematic persecution or subjugation to another faith since antiquity. That’s a very different set of circumstances than under which the Orthodox Churches have operated since the rise of Islam: the Orthodox Churches had to worry about basic survival in a way that the West did not, which left Western theologians free to ponder things that, in a context of merely attempting to survive amidst Muslim aggression, would indeed appear trite, piddly, and/or immaterial. This, to my mind, can at least partly explain the divergence of spiritual mindset between the Orthodox and the West.
Much of the commentary here, to my reading, strikes me as quasi-fundamentalist … the quotation from Pius XII, for example, begs the question of context and, yes, interpretation: the language of documents such as that is couched in a tradition of meaning that, as with Scripture, isn’t immediately apparent. Then you add in the matter of translation, and there’s yet another layer of complexity.
As another example, liturgy-minded Romans have written ad nauseam in the past several decades about the meaning of the phrase “full, conscious, and active participation” from Vatican II’s liturgy constitution, but many participants in that discussion haven’t stopped to consider the difference between the Latin word “actuosa” and the English word “active” (or the Latin “activa”), and the same folks usually also haven’t bothered with reading and understanding documents from before V2 that use the same phrase.
This is, of course, not to imply that we consider Church documents to be of equal footing with Scripture! But, as with Scripture, context and language matters can suggest a more nuanced, “shades-of-gray” understanding of things that, at face value, can seem quite “straightforward”.
Note, too, that the decentralized ecclesiology has indeed allowed what Romans can see as moral error to creep into Churches like the Coptic Church: specifically, the Coptic Church’s acceptance of contraception. Bl. Paul VI’s predictions in “Humanae vitae” of the consequences of contraception have come to pass in much of the world: more marital infidelity, lowering of moral standards, exploitation of women.
(I believe I posted above that, in my own relationship, we’ve had the contraception discussion multiple times and have reached agreement on how we would live our marriage.)
The “arbiter among Patriarchs” is essentially the role that the Pope plays. The Pope does not function like, say, the Mormon president, who literally can (and has!) get up one day and announce that God has done a 180-degree reversal of teaching. The two cases where we’ve had “ex cathedra” pronouncements were both matters on which there had long been discussion, and (so my theologian mother tells me) there was seen a pastoral need for “arbitration” (Mina’s term), which took form in the “ex cathedra” pronouncements. The Pope is NOT a “sole” source of infallible dogma—though it may seem that way at first glance because this is the most “direct” source of such that the RCC identifies.
And yet there is always a vexing need to seek out the Vatican for views and decisions, rather than rely on one's own bishop in his/her diocese who can make decisions of ***equal*** (and that's the key issue here) authority.
Are there other examples of "moral errors" besides non-abortive contraception that you feel Orthodox churches have fell into due to "decentralized" ecclesiology? Because you've repeated this example before, and I find it a very weak example, imo.
Yes indeed a weak argument. Even this statement, "Bl. Paul VI’s predictions in “Humanae vitae” of the consequences of contraception have come to pass in much of the world: more marital infidelity, lowering of moral standards, exploitation of women.", is grossly suspect. This encyclical letter suggests that the use of any type of birth control has a causal relationship with morality, with infidelity, and exploitation of women. Such a causal relationship fails logically.
Morality
God Himself having declared that a husband and wife should go and be fruitful, yet He also has made many people infertile. As the encyclical specifically says "For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation." Thus infertility is also natural law revealing the will of God. If such a causal relationship between induced infertility and morality exists, then God would be guilty of causing immorality in a husband and wife. And at the same time, having children and not having children would simultaneously be God's will. Polar opposites cannot both be revelation of God's will that reveal a causal relationship to morality. One can only deduce that linking immorality to the use of contraception is a logical fallacy.
Infidelity
If induced infertility is a cause of infidelity, would this not make the Virgin Mary and St Joseph the Carpenter guilty of infidelity? If one believes in the ever-virginity status of the Virgin Mary, then by claiming such a causal relationship, she would be guilty of infidelity. Here again, we have two contradicting positions the Roman Catholic Church has setup.
But leave aside the ever-virginity of the Virgin Mary. The encyclical assumes that the incidence of marital infidelity is linked to contraception. There are plenty of people who cheat that have children. More often, people who do not use contraception are cheating. Nothing more than empirical observation can say contraception causes infidelity.
Exploitation of women
Just like infidelity, nothing more than empirical observation, or a biased interpretation of observation, can conclude contraception causes exploitation of women. The exploitation of women is more directly related to cultural views of women, not the use of contraception. In fact, in Islamic countries where contraception is not allowed, the exploitation of women is commonplace.
The encyclical states "Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." Many (non-RCC) husbands insanely devout to their wives use contraception. They care about their wive's reverence since this is a commandment found in the scriptures. They do not see their wives as an instrument for their satisfaction and they continue to see their wives as partners in God's divine plan. All the reasons given by the encyclical are not found in the practical world.
There are more inconsistencies found in this encyclical. It illustrates the RCC has continued to define issues of morality and primacy based on their own "nuances" while at the same time completely ignoring the possibility of different, true and acceptable views.
In the same vein one can argue that the fasting and liturgical rules have been relaxed in the RCC because of centralized authority that liberalizes these practices without the consultation of a synod. I find it very odd that many Catholics merely "give up" something for 40 days rather than take on a full vegan diet for 40 days of Lent as was the case in the RCC before VII.
I feel it's very silly to argue that there have been any issues with moral theology in some sense because of ecclesiology. One can say in the Middle Ages, it was a centralized papacy that allowed the inquisition and some immoral aspects of the Crusades to occur. I can very well make that argument quite convincingly if you like, but I did not want to go there because I believe in arguing the very merits of the theology of Papacy itself, not its results from its system or the lack of a system, as I believe such a case can be made on both sides of the table.
May I also add that just because the RCC has a Magisterium does not mean it is not Papally guided. Thus far, it seems to me the Pope offers a vision and some views, and the Magisterium creates a theology to justify the Pope's views, rather than challenge them and put him on the test as one among many bishops of the Synod.
May I interject and ask some questions here, to bring the issue back into perspective? I hope I'm not Hijacking so Ill hop on, and get gone fast. Essentially, a lived theology is more telling of a church than a written one, and, so, while our Coptic Orthodox church preaches the "concilliar model" it effectively lives a magisterium that is pope directed. In fact, I once hear a Bishop flat out teach that we believe in a magisterium.
My question to the panel, and I present it without offense, and asking that you respond ONLY with the intent of truthful and honest answer irrespective of any current denominational affiliation:
1) Is the Coptic church living in a Pope-directed paradigm right now.
2) If yes to the above question, what implications does that have on our church's ability to define its theological views as opposed to Rome's?
My point is to say, we are effectively a Pope directed church, fancy definitions aside. No Bishop opposes he teachings of the Pope (clearly seen in the refusal of most Bishops to outright defy HHPS3 on the Theosis issue-opting rather to call it a "misunderstanding.") So if we are Pope directed church, we cannot really claim, in practice, that we much different from the RCC, no? Really, one just has a guy wearing a funny white hat, and the other, a funnier black one.
I'm not trying to de-rail, but I think its important to assess the situation from that aspect too. Furhter, considering that an ex-cathedra statement is after consultations of the Congregation of Bishops who support the Pope, whats the difference between that and a "synodial Decision." It seems to me is that in one case, Pope Francis reads what his boys have decided, and in the other, Anba Rofail announces what Anba Tawadros and HIS boys have decided. And in the end, both are taken as the divine word of Jesus Christ.
I'm asking for practicality. And for my feeble mind, practically, its the same cow, different beef.
First of all, Ray, don't ever "get gone fast." We need here more.
There is always a spectrum with these issues. The only thing that really changes is where each church falls in this spectrum. It should be noted that for every consecutive patriarch and synod, the position on the spectrum changes. For the most part, the Coptic Church has maintained a magisterium-type model in the Synod. But to be fair, I think the Russian Orthodox Church also has, as is the Greek Orthodox, the Syrian Oriental, and just about every Orthodox Church. If their patriarch says something wrong, they simply stay quiet and figure out quiet ways to deal with the problem. There have been occasions where a respective synod has "forced" a metropolitan to retire for certain "liberal" teachings. So in essence, when a problem does arise, a magisterium-like model is used and the perpetrator is "retired". Long gone are the days when a proclamation is sent out removing the perpetrator from the diptychs with the most heinous anathema/name calling.
However, there is a fundamental difference between the RCC and the Coptic Orthodox Church (or any other Orthodox Church). If the Coptic Pope said something wrong and the Synod stayed quiet (or even endorsed the decision), we are not bound by it. There have been many patristic writings condemning bishops who abuse their power. (There was a thread here a few years back on this). The fathers basically agreed that a person is bound by the Truth, not by the decision of a bishop who operates outside the truth.
The RCC that has declared an ex-cathedra proclamation, by definition, still requires the RCC faithful to be bound by it. No subsequent pope or magisterium can revoke the proclamation since the proclamation is infallible. Thus, you cannot be a faithful Catholic (and this applies to all Catholic branches, not just Roman Catholic) without believing in the ex-cathedra proclamation, even if it is wrong.
Of course, in the end, each party says they hold the truth. The revelation of the Truth is manifested by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, it takes the human bishops a few years (and a few subsequent synods) to get things right.
Comments
Really, “Church of Rome” probably isn’t the best of terms since, strictly speaking, it refers to the diocese of Rome rather than to the conglomerate of local Churches that are in dogmatic union with the Church of Rome. I was trying to be unambiguous; “Catholic Church” is problematic, too, though, for other reasons.
I’ve no doubt that, historically, many views of the Chacedonian schism have been in play—that goes for a wide array of theological concepts, of course.
I don’t think the West uses the imagery of the husband as “priest”. We don’t have crownings or such. (I think the pre-V2 wedding rite had more such “pomp” than our modern rite—alas—does.)
Do you think your (and others’) arguments against the “Roman model” of understanding Petrine primacy are unanswered? What would a “devil’s advocate” response to your assertion be? I don’t have a background in Patristics and can’t comment intelligently on what St. Ignatius of Antioch said (other than that I recall his saying that the bishop was necessary) or what his contemporaries or short-term successors may have added. Were I to take a stab, though, I would wonder if this may be an instance of “ongoing revelation”, a theology that, like Aquinas’s models for understanding the Eucharist, simply took definitive form later, even as it is (arguably) recognizable in a different form in the early Church. There certainly is not unanimity in all modern Catholic teachings among all of the saints whom we venerate; as I recall, Aquinas himself denied the Immaculate Conception.
I wonder, actually, if this all may indeed be “different strokes for different folks”. Protestantism and secularism seem to affect Western Christianity much more than they do the Orthodox. If the West did not have a centralized “tie-breaker” in the Bishop of Rome, perhaps we would have splintered in many more ways than we did from Luther & Co. I mean, goodness, I know “Catholics”—and many of them!—who believe the Church should recognize same-sex unions and female clergy, allow abortions, and grant marital nullity decrees basically willy-nilly … to say nothing of the perennial hot-button topic of contraception. Our recent Synod on the Family revealed an awful lot of divergence even among our episcopate on pretty fundamental ideas of family and marriage. Perhaps, ok, that is God’s punishment for our heterodoxy, or maybe it’s a vestige of our centuries of being essentially intertwined with secular government—or, maybe that’s exactly why we in the West do need the Pope as leader.
I’ll grab the Cleenewerk. Looks interesting. I’m a bit suspicious of Cdl. Kasper, but hey.
@RomanNomad,
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this subject. I hope my comments do not raise another red flag. The truth is we all want perfect union. But I wish to reply to some of comments.
First, I like to reiterate Minasoliman's comments that the Roman Catholic Church's dogmatizing of every issue under the sun opens them to heresy and unnecessary claims and positions. I will add that the net result usually ends with some form of back paddling. Take for example your reference of
Catechism in #838:
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who
are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the
successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
How can a church say one who doesn't profess our faith in entirety or has not preserved unity under the successor of Peter has a communion nonetheless and that communion ”is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness"? One can't say we know other churches have communion with Christ and but they have an imperfect communion, unless one defines perfect communion as communion under the Roman Catholic Church. If the latter is the case, then there was no need to say other churches who have not preserved unity under the successor of Peter have a communion.
In addition, from this whole thread, you seem to show that all the criteria Roman Catecesis allows for the other churches to profess the fullness of faith (such as faith in the Trinity, baptism, priesthood, interfaith marriages) are more easily found in the Protestant churches than the Coptic Church. (Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopal. Even though Protestant sacraments are ceremonial in nature, they still have Eucharist and baptism, etc). If such is the case, then Catechesis 838 is misleading at best.
Maybe the Catholic catechesis addressed these ambiguous definitions of communion, fullness of faith and profoundness elsewhere.
Second, you wrote "For us, at least, a sacrament is a sacrament per its form merely. For example, I can baptize anyone, such as in a state of emergency, even regardless of whether they desire it or not. That’s definitely not normal for us , but it’s consistent with the idea that the sacrament is efficacious independent of the individual’s action/thought or lack thereof: it’s God who works rather than we."
Not even Christ baptized anyone by force regardless of whether they desired it or not. It seems the fact that Roman Catholic Church (and most EO churches) allow this loophole, shows a lack of sacrament form. There can't be a sacrament if the sacrament’s form is "anything under the sun" without specific requirements to that form. Some Protestant Churches have the same loophole (layperson baptizing in the Trinitarian formula in emergency). By your definition, their Protestant sacrament is a sacrament per its form merely.
Third. You wrote, "Of what salvific significance is it if I believe that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and from the Son versus from the Father alone, or that the Bishop of Rome is, by virtue of his office, Christ’s very Vicar on earth, as opposed to an honorary “first among equals”? Personally, I can’t see it as a “sine qua non” to be united on these matters, which seem, to laypeople, much more of theological than of practical, day-to-day import."
The problem here is that you are building a false dichotomy between theologians and laypeople. All laypeople must be theologians (that is think and live the faith intellectually) and all theologians must be simply laypeople (that is live the faith piously). No one can live piously without making an intellectual and theological decision to pursue Christ. The two cannot be separated. Papal infallibility and the Assumption of Mary are ex cathedra declarations of the Catholic Church. The fifth condition of ex cathedra declarations is that "must be held by the whole Church". Therefore, the layperson cannot be united to the Roman Catholic Church if he does not hold it as "sine qua non". In fact, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:
“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.” (emphasis added).
One could argue that a Catholic who marries a non-Catholic does not necessarily deny or doubt the doctrines of papal infallibility and the Assumption of Mary. He simply chooses to submerges them into a subset of non-essential matters. However, even if one allows the possibility of such submergence, when you marry the two become one. Your other half will not believe in essential Roman Catholic faith. Since the two are one, you have not only submerged essential Catholic theological doctrine, but you have essential fallen away from the Catholic faith by marrying a non-Catholic. Therefore it is of the same salvific significance to believe in essential Roman Catholic theological doctrine, as it is to have any marriage sacrament. The only thing one can do to reconcile is back paddle again to either state that ex cathedra declarations are not really essential or to say marriage to a non-Catholic makes one fall away from the Catholic faith.
Again, I am not saying this to insult the Catholic faith. I truly think union is possible and essential. Minatasgeel has answered the original question. There cannot be true Orthodox marriage if one expects to ignore essential theology. This is the position of the Orthodox Church. Minasoliman convincingly attempted to show why one particular Catholic doctrine is incompatible with Orthodoxy. My sense from your comments and from others is that some were trying to argue theology is meaningless at the grassroots daily living of Catholics and non-Catholics. This is view point is extremely dangerous and outright illogical.
http://tasbeha.org/community/index.php?p=/discussion/5689/theosis/p1
http://tasbeha.org/community/discussion/15450/the-deification-of-man-hh-pope-shenouda-iii/p1
Have any of the Bishops actually come out publicly and stated corrections or clarifications concerning Theosis and HH's book? I would imagine that unless the Synod or a few of our Bishops begin using the term and teaching about it, there will be continual misunderstanding about what Theosis is.
I am a bit late to this thread, having just found this site, so I realize this may go unread. At any rate, congratulations on your planned marriage.
I was a sincere, serious-minded, practicing Roman Catholic for nearly a quarter of a century, until I discovered the authenticity and Grace of Orthodoxy a few years ago. I wish to share a thought: if your wife were to adopt the same stance towards other 'men' as your church does towards other 'religions', how long do you think your marriage would last? to believe in everything, is to believe in nothing. I hope this is not the case with you. I am familiar with the turf from which you display your church's gushing 'openness'. I have lived on both sides of the fence that Vatican II erected... modernist and traditionalist. I would most strongly encourage you to remember God's Providence as you think about the love you bear towards this Coptic woman, and her entry into your life. Your relationship with God has to do with an eternal context... your marriage, if I understand correctly, occurs in a temporal context. Demonstrate your love for her by respecting and learning about her ancient and Orthodox Faith... one which sees her brothers and sisters in the Mideast being murdered/martyred regularly. If we fail in humility, you or I, we will find all doors closed but the exits. Please accept this advice as sincerely given...from a husband of 35 years and a father of 5 children; and 8 grandchildren.
Forgive.
Theofan
Mina’s last response touches on the idea that even we on this thread might simply have such a different set of “tools” for communicating on these topics that it is hard to discern similarities apart from divergences.
On “we need to keep things simple” … I personally think that God gives us rational minds for the precise purpose of “reaching out” to Him who is infinite wisdom, infinite logic, perfect reason. In the same way in which a procreating couple “reaches out” to God by imitating his creative work in effecting a new human being, the rational mind, in analyzing parts of the faith, can be similarly “reaching out”. Are such distinctions as consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation fundamental for salvation? I certainly hope not since I imagine most believers don’t grasp the full theological significance of these concepts—including myself! But, I think there *are* some whose purpose *is* to do that kind of thinking.
The Church in the West hasn’t been under widespread, systematic persecution or subjugation to another faith since antiquity. That’s a very different set of circumstances than under which the Orthodox Churches have operated since the rise of Islam: the Orthodox Churches had to worry about basic survival in a way that the West did not, which left Western theologians free to ponder things that, in a context of merely attempting to survive amidst Muslim aggression, would indeed appear trite, piddly, and/or immaterial. This, to my mind, can at least partly explain the divergence of spiritual mindset between the Orthodox and the West.
Much of the commentary here, to my reading, strikes me as quasi-fundamentalist … the quotation from Pius XII, for example, begs the question of context and, yes, interpretation: the language of documents such as that is couched in a tradition of meaning that, as with Scripture, isn’t immediately apparent. Then you add in the matter of translation, and there’s yet another layer of complexity.
As another example, liturgy-minded Romans have written ad nauseam in the past several decades about the meaning of the phrase “full, conscious, and active participation” from Vatican II’s liturgy constitution, but many participants in that discussion haven’t stopped to consider the difference between the Latin word “actuosa” and the English word “active” (or the Latin “activa”), and the same folks usually also haven’t bothered with reading and understanding documents from before V2 that use the same phrase.
This is, of course, not to imply that we consider Church documents to be of equal footing with Scripture! But, as with Scripture, context and language matters can suggest a more nuanced, “shades-of-gray” understanding of things that, at face value, can seem quite “straightforward”.
Note, too, that the decentralized ecclesiology has indeed allowed what Romans can see as moral error to creep into Churches like the Coptic Church: specifically, the Coptic Church’s acceptance of contraception. Bl. Paul VI’s predictions in “Humanae vitae” of the consequences of contraception have come to pass in much of the world: more marital infidelity, lowering of moral standards, exploitation of women.
(I believe I posted above that, in my own relationship, we’ve had the contraception discussion multiple times and have reached agreement on how we would live our marriage.)
The “arbiter among Patriarchs” is essentially the role that the Pope plays. The Pope does not function like, say, the Mormon president, who literally can (and has!) get up one day and announce that God has done a 180-degree reversal of teaching. The two cases where we’ve had “ex cathedra” pronouncements were both matters on which there had long been discussion, and (so my theologian mother tells me) there was seen a pastoral need for “arbitration” (Mina’s term), which took form in the “ex cathedra” pronouncements. The Pope is NOT a “sole” source of infallible dogma—though it may seem that way at first glance because this is the most “direct” source of such that the RCC identifies.
Are there other examples of "moral errors" besides non-abortive contraception that you feel Orthodox churches have fell into due to "decentralized" ecclesiology? Because you've repeated this example before, and I find it a very weak example, imo.