Tonight the ITI hosted a lecture by Prof. Christoph Suttner, one of the world's leading historians of the Greek churches. Although it will force me to make gross simplifications of all he had to say, I'm going to keep this very short. Bascially, he said that the Orthodox are neither schismatics nor heretics.
1. There is no schism because Vatican II said that wherever the Eucharist is celebrated there is a true particular church. If they are true particular churches then they are in the one Church of Christ, hence no schism.
2. Furthermore, if they are true churches, and the church is infallible, then they can't be heretics, and you are a heretic if you say they are.
To the first I reply: Nonsense. Although Vatican II does recognize Orthodox churches as true particular churches, the whole point is that their union is imperfect inasmuch as they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. To the extent that they are true churches they are already Catholic; to the extent that they refuse obedience to Rome they are in schism.
To the second I reply: Hogwash. Infallibility certainly does not apply to particular churches. On this account even the Arians wouldn't be heretics. The only real leg that he had left to stand on after a few pointed questions is the fact that the Orthodox church hasn't really taught anything ever since the Council of Florence (1439) where they agreed to the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son, the legitimacy of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the existence of Purgatory, and the primacy of the Pope. This is the last official Orthodox teaching because the emperor (Caesaropapism was always a problem in the East) was eliminated in 1453 when Constantinople was taken by the Turk. Well and good, but if the denial of a dogmatically defined doctrine of the Church (such as the Filioque clause or the Immaculate Conception) doesn't make for heresy nothing does.
Update: A certain Boniface mentioned in the comments box the pertinence of the papal bull Unam Sanctam (1302); See also the bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV (1441). Interestingly enough, Unam Sanctam came up in the questions period and the Prof. had never heard of it! When informed of its contents, he replied that it was not infallible! If this is not an ex cathedra statement I don't know what is: "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Now, we can discuss interpretation if you like, but this is a dogma of the Catholic Church (de fide).
1. There is no schism because Vatican II said that wherever the Eucharist is celebrated there is a true particular church. If they are true particular churches then they are in the one Church of Christ, hence no schism.
2. Furthermore, if they are true churches, and the church is infallible, then they can't be heretics, and you are a heretic if you say they are.
To the first I reply: Nonsense. Although Vatican II does recognize Orthodox churches as true particular churches, the whole point is that their union is imperfect inasmuch as they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. To the extent that they are true churches they are already Catholic; to the extent that they refuse obedience to Rome they are in schism.
To the second I reply: Hogwash. Infallibility certainly does not apply to particular churches. On this account even the Arians wouldn't be heretics. The only real leg that he had left to stand on after a few pointed questions is the fact that the Orthodox church hasn't really taught anything ever since the Council of Florence (1439) where they agreed to the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son, the legitimacy of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the existence of Purgatory, and the primacy of the Pope. This is the last official Orthodox teaching because the emperor (Caesaropapism was always a problem in the East) was eliminated in 1453 when Constantinople was taken by the Turk. Well and good, but if the denial of a dogmatically defined doctrine of the Church (such as the Filioque clause or the Immaculate Conception) doesn't make for heresy nothing does.
Update: A certain Boniface mentioned in the comments box the pertinence of the papal bull Unam Sanctam (1302); See also the bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV (1441). Interestingly enough, Unam Sanctam came up in the questions period and the Prof. had never heard of it! When informed of its contents, he replied that it was not infallible! If this is not an ex cathedra statement I don't know what is: "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Now, we can discuss interpretation if you like, but this is a dogma of the Catholic Church (de fide).
8 comments:
Hear, hear, John Patrick! What a twisting of the truth on the part of this professor to make such claims!
Will you send comments to him, or is that not done because you are only a "lowly" student?
Hogwash indeed! Apparently, he has never read the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (1302), which says the following with regards to the Greek Churches:
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'"
I don't think I'll need to send my lowly comments to him. During the questions period after the talk plenty of the students (especially the Byzantine Catholics) voiced their criticisms of his position.
It is interesting that the Byzantine Catholics tend to be very critical of the Orthodox.
Boniface,
Interestingly enough, one of the American students asked him about Unam Sanctam and he had never heard of it! When told what it said, he replied that,
"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
does not constitute an ex cathedra statement!
Well, it wasn't proclaimed ex cathedra because the ex cathedra understanding as your professor is using it is a more recent development. "Declare and define" is pretty ... definitive, though.
But the decrees of the council of Florence are not binding on the Greeks because the people of Constantinople stoned the council bishops who returned to that city! Surely you knew that!
I'll grant that it wasn't proclaimed "ex cathedra" only in the sense that those words probably weren't used.
But inasmuch as an "ex cathedra" statement simply means an exercise of papal infallibility, of which this is an example whether expressed in those terms at the time or not, I think one is justified in noting this as an "ex cathedra" statement.
You've clearly spent too much time learning what words really mean, and not enough time learning how to get them to mean what you need them to mean!
hogwash is the best word ive seen you use throughout this entire blog... well done
Post a Comment