Merry Marymas!

Today is the great feast commemorating the Dormition and Assumption of Our Lady.

Yes, Dormition. While the exact time-frame of all this is not really known except from legend, and while one might expect her own resurrection to occur on the third day, as with her Son, they are both commemorated today, showing their intimate connection.

Throughout history, however, people have had an almost natural impulse to wish to draw out this feast over a period or with a second feast sometime after. I'm not just talking about an octave with octave-day. Rather, there has been a very practical concern with a desire to commemorate both aspects of this feast that are abstractable one from the other: one, Mary's departure from this life and, two, her glorification in the next. And while these two sides of the same coin are both condensed into today, throughout history people have tried to find a liturgical way to emphasize one or the other on different days. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Assumption explains:

The Greek Church continues this feast to 23 August, inclusive, and in some monasteries of Mount Athos it is protracted to 29 August (Menaea Graeca, Venice, 1880), or was, at least, formerly. In the dioceses of Bavaria a thirtieth day (a species of month's mind) of the Assumption was celebrated during the Middle Ages, 13 Sept., with the Office of the Assumption (double); today, only the Diocese of Augsburg has retained this old custom.

Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the "Second Assumption", or the "Fortieth Day of the Assumption" (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B.V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Brigittines kept the feast of the "Glorification of Mary" (double) 30 Aug., since St. Brigitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI, l) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 August. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation.

I think that the old Central American and Calabrian practice makes the most sense to me. I find it hard to believe that Mary was taken up 15 or 40 days after her Dormition. Perhaps the latter was trying to make analogy to the Ascension, but there is no evidence for a period of glorified life on earth for Our Lady after her resurrection as there was for Our Lord. And that only makes sense: the final Passion and Resurrection of the Church (which she typifies) will be followed immediately by Ecclesia's ultimate assumption to glory with Her Bridegroom, not by any intervening Age (such as exists between Our Lord's first coming and His final triumph at the End, as signified by the 40 days on earth between His resurrection and ascension). And surely she did not remain dead in a tomb that long (else she would have seen corruption). Furthermore, tradition now, for better or worse, associates this day with commemoration of both the Dormition and the Assumption, so having a separate commemoration of the Assumption in se so much longer after the first feast seems incongruous; it should be within the octave at least.

I also think that designating this "second feast" of the Assumption as the Coronation makes sense. This leaves one free to commemorate the Assumption today with the Dormition, in order to highlight their intrinsic connection, while still having a particular feast a few days later (ie, along a more "historical" time-line for the events in question) of her glorification in heaven separately. As, theologically speaking, the "Coronation" could not really be a separate event from her entrance into heavenly glory itself. I would be inclined, however, to put this feast of the Coronation on August 17th (in analogy to the relation between Good Friday and Easter).

One of my pet peeves surrounding the solemn extraordinary dogmatic definition of the Assumption in 1950 by Pius XII is that, since he phrased it so as to define only the Assumption and to leave out the question of Mary's death, you will now hear many Catholics state that whether or not she died is "up for debate" or an "open question," which implies and reinforces a notion of doctrine that is positivistic as regards the extraordinary magisterium, as if something isn't a doctrine or binding just because it has never been solemnly defined.

This notion is faulty. Just because the Dormition hasn't been solemnly defined by an act of extraordinary magisterium like the Assumption has, doesn't mean it is "up for discussion." It is actually infallible under the ordinary and universal magisterium. Father J. F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., goes so far as to state that "the death of the Most Holy Virgin may be considered as historically proved and explicitly revealed: as such (explicitly revealed) it may be the subject of a dogmatic definition: there is no reason why it should not be."

This was not really questioned until the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. In another example of this sort of magisterial positivism among Catholics leading to serious theological sickliness, theologians took the "new" dogma of the Immaculate Conception as justification for debating whether Mary did in fact first die (for much of history it was just assumed; no pun intended).

This is poor theology; there is no reason that the absence of original sin would cause immortality. The baptized still die, Christ submitted to death. Immortality was one of the "preternatural gifts" superadded to human nature before the Fall (see the last paragraph of this article). Non-glorified human bodies, being composite, still naturally incline towards dissolution, with or without sin; immortality and impassibility were positive additions by God above and beyond human nature in original innocence. And though they were lost with the Fall, they do not intrinsically go along with the question of presence or lack of original sin in itself.

While Mary's soul was created already in a state of grace, already without original sin or its spiritual effects, there is nothing to indicate that she also received the Edenic physical preternatural gifts: Mary still suffered hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, unknowing, and sorrow in her life. There is no reason death itself would be any different.

This is one of those cases where the Orthodox see our fetishization of authority as really problematic and untraditional: just because it wasn't part of an extraordinary dogmatic definition in 1950, that leaves all sorts of Catholics saying that this leaves the question open (and, in fact, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many theologians did start to debate it). It doesnt. The Orthodox would find this absurd and an extreme rejection of tradition. Mary's dormition is infallible by ordinary and universal magisterium.

In fact, Mary's dormition was for a long time considered more certain than the Assumption (which even Catholic Encyclopedia in 1917 seemed to put only at the level of sententia probilior). The Feast was called the Dormition for a long time before it was the Assumption, after all. This from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Blessed Virgin Mary:

"St. Epiphanius doubts even the reality of Mary's death; but the universal belief of the Church does not agree with the private opinion of St. Epiphanius. Mary's death was not necessarily the effect of violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die."

I believe it has been pointed out before by many Saints that the sword of sorrow would have killed Mary right there on Calvary alongside her son, if God had not miraculously preserved her and held back the effects. In her death, the floodgates of that martyrdom of love were finally loosed, and she at last was allowed to die of the wound in her heart that she had received years before at the foot of the cross, crowning a lifetime of suffering for her son, and in conformity to Him. A true martyrdom indeed, as explained so wonderfully by St. Alphonsus. But if she died such a martyrdom in conformity to her son, so much more was she resurrected and glorified in conformity to the same and, with her, each of us and created nature itself, in the Church, are restored.

400th Post!

Yay...

Another Resignation

More on the question of resignations and accountability:

A lawmaker in New Hampshire has apologized and resigned from the state's House of Representatives, a day after posting a comment on the Internet that speculated about the death of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

In a public letter to the House speaker Thursday, Democratic Rep. Timothy Horrigan expressed regret for bringing "this House into disrepute," Politico reported.

On Wednesday, Horrigan posted a comment on Facebook speculating that a dead Palin would achieve martyrdom.

"I don't wish Sarah Palin dead . . . but not merely for compassionate reasons," Horrigan wrote on Facebook. "I also want her to live because a living Sarah Palin is less dangerous than a dead one."

So this guy makes one stupid comment about Sarah Palin that isn't even really that controversial (he quite clearly said that he didn't want her dead, if only so that she wouldn't be a martyr)...and he resigns as a legislator a day later.

Meanwhile, Sodano and Bertone and Hoyos and Danneels still have Church-funded incomes, Cantalamessa is still papal preacher and, of course, Cardinal Brady is still in power...

So Fucked Up...

I've discussed my opinions on this before. This just makes me so mad. It's so...childish, so insane. I really am too sad and angry that this is what our religion has become to say any more right now. Just...ugh:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/08/social-media-rosary-crusade-much.html

Not That Abnormal

[Update: this post has been altered to reflect the fact that I did start drinking in August thanks to the influence of a dear friend of mine!]

Though I do now drink occasionally myself, I have always been disturbed by the implication that not drinking is weird, that "everybody" drinks. I think people should mind their own business and not pressure their friends who make such a choice or look down on them; this is especially an issue among the young, in college and even high school (and earlier!)

But I recently found the following statistics that I find rather reassuring:

According to the CDC, in 2006 (most recent year with data available), 75% of adults age 18 and over in the United States had used alcohol at some point in their lives. 61% were current drinkers, meaning that 14% were former drinkers who had made the decision to stop using alcohol. The remaining 25% of the population were lifelong abstainers.

25 percent!! A whole quarter that have never drank! For those of you who make such a choice, I highly respect you, and 25% is hardly all that rare or weird or abnormal. And nearly 40% don't drink currently, counting those who have given it up at some point (maybe that will be me again some day). And the number of women who are lifelong abstainers is almost a third, and those who don't currently is almost half!

Similar numbers are given by recent Gallup polls about drinking which suggest that, though drinking may be slightly on the rise (due to the economic problems?), it still is only in the 60's percent range among all adults.

The media portrayal about its "universal" prevalence is thus highly over-exaggerated; I've also always liked this song:

Digging the Hole Deeper

How could someone so smart be so stupid?!!?:

If Pope Benedict XVI is trying to dig the Catholic Church out of the sex abuse scandal, he only seems to be making the hole deeper.

That's the apparent consensus after it was reported that the pope has rejected the resignations of two bishops in Ireland who asked to quit last December after they were named in an independent report for their lack of diligence and action in the country's awful history of the sexual and physical abuse of children by priests.

Sure, they say they weren't implicated "directly"...but who cares? This looks so bad. No one has any right to be a bishop; you step down for the sake of the Church! Poor Diarmuid Martin, a good guy, tries to fix things, and the central bureaucrats in Rome frustrate his efforts to clean things up:

"The Vatican [was] not impressed with the way Diarmuid Martin went on PrimeTime [an Irish television news program] and called on other bishops to be accountable," Garry O'Sullivan, editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper in Dublin, told The Associated Press. "It's not the way business is done in Rome."

The Irish Catholic first obtained a copy of a letter Martin sent to priests, in which he said the Vatican decided that the bishops would remain in office but would be "assigned revised responsibilities within the diocese." Neither Archbishop Martin nor the auxiliaries would comment or detail what those new responsibilities would entail.

Other analysts suggested that behind the Vatican's rejection was the fear of a "domino effect" in which any bishop or cardinal implicated in the abuse crisis could be pushed to resign, which is a nightmare scenario to a tradition-minded pope like Benedict XVI.

"In other words, there may still be many Irish bishops with 'mishandling/bureaucratic,' sex abuse skeletons still in the cupboard who would also have to resign," Paddy Agnew wrote in The Irish Times.

That would be fine with sex abuse victims, who were outraged at the decision to reject the resignations.

"So much was expected of the pontiff, and so little was delivered," said John Kelly, leader of Survivors of Child Abuse, an Irish advocacy group. "The pope said that priests and bishops needed to surrender themselves to the demands of justice. Here were two of many who did surrender themselves -- and they've been refused," Kelly said. "That sends out a signal that there is to be no change, no closure for victims and no accountability."

Abuse survivor Marie Collins also said she was "at a loss" and "past being angry." The church was not "going to be accountable or take responsibility." She felt "people, survivors in particular, are also entitled to an explanation as to why Bishop Moriarty's resignation was accepted but Bishop Walsh's and Bishop Field's were not."

In the United States, SNAP, or The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, chastised Benedict for "rubbing more salt into the already deep and still fresh wounds of thousands of child sex abuse victims and millions of betrayed Catholics."

Media reaction was blistering as well.

Writing in The Herald of Ireland, Terry Prone accused the Vatican of "arrogance." He said the way the news was communicated was typical of the Vatican, and said that "somewhere along the line, the officer class in the Catholic Church decided they no longer needed to explain and persuade and motivate. They could just tell the faithful. Or not tell them, as in this case."

"Latest Papal diktat spells doom for people's church" ran the headline in John Cooney's column in the Irish Independent, while Kevin Clarke, writing on the blog of America magazine, a leading Catholic weekly in the United States, searched for an explanation.

"Could the Curia [the pope's advisors] truly be so oblivious to the anger and frustration of average Catholics worldwide trying to make sense of the church's response to years of sexual abuse by clergy on Catholic children?" Clarke asked. "It doesn't seem possible."

For many, it now seems more than possible, but highly probable.

There should be a domino effect! We need most or all of the bishops of the Western church to resign and be replaced by fresh blood to heal things. But, no, they cling to their positions. And, of course, Cardinal Brady is still in power...

Confessional Idea

There was a post on Fr. Z lately about parishes not offering enough times for confession, the sad trend of confessions available "by appointment only" (talk about awkward!), etc.

It's got me thinking. On the one hand, I don't necessarily agree with the notion held by some conservative Catholics that constantly available confessions are necessary or even ideal. I think I've said before that a few strategically placed churches in a diocese could have confession all day (perhaps ones associated with a monastery, or the Cathedral, or other place where many priests will be available to rotate), but that it is hardly necessary in the parish. A weekly weekend slot is reasonable and, in fact, I worry from personal experience that being spoiled with daily available confessions can just make one presumptuous in sinning and lazy spiritually that way. There is something mortifying about having to wait to get back on the wagon rather than having instant absolution available as if it's just some toggle-switch for grace. Perpetual confessions are really no more necessary than perpetual adoration, and can become just as distorted an emphasis if we're not careful.

However, all that being said, not all Catholics' schedules are alike. And there may be a way to have confessions be more widely available than scheduling big chunks of time during the week, which many priests don't have (or, rather, they do, but refuse to waste it sitting in a box for an hour when only one person shows up).

Though I don't necessarily like the attitude of "drive-through" confessions in a parish-as-sacrament-factory, I have been chewing over an idea that I'd like to at least see experimented with somewhere.

The idea is this: rectories could have a confessional built along some side wall that penitents could enter from the outside. It would be like a tool-shed; it wouldn't have a door into the rectory, but there would be a connecting screen with a room on the other side, in the rectory. When priests were in the rectory just working on paper-work in the office, or watching TV, or just lounging around or whatever...they could turn on the "green light" hanging outside the confessional (and visible from the street). People would know that there was someone available then, and could go into the confessional. There would be a "doorbell" inside that would ring and alert a priest to come to the confessional on his side, switch the light to red, and hear the confession. If the priest went out, or was showering, or in a meeting, or in bed, or for whatever reason just didn't want to be bothered at the moment...he just would press the button (perhaps it would be remote controlled) turning off the light and the buzzer.

That way, priests could be doing other things around the rectory during the day without having to necessarily set aside a whole hour just for confessions if very few people come. Sure, there would be no guarantees about confession availability during the week, and there would still have to be a specifically scheduled slot on the weekend. But outside that, people would start to pick up on what times the priest was usually home, and could drive by and see if the light was on during the times of day he tended to be available if they were seeking a confession. At the very least, I'd think it would be an interesting experiment to try...

Hilarious!

Reditus has drawn my attention to this new blog The Catholic Fascist which is a satire of the Right Wing Republican Catholic blogosphere.

I don't know, in turn, how far to the Left they are personally (the article satirizing the critique of altar girls suggests they are fine with them; I'm really not)...but at least people are starting to stand up against the crazy "conservative" American Catholic world with all its xenophobia, capitalism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and militarism; not to mention the obvious deep-seated insecurity about masculinity resulting in sometimes blatant compensatory chauvinism, homophobia, misogyny, etc., masquerading as the Gospel.

Some of this stuff is just brilliant. Here is their blog description:

Chris Hedges has it right: Christian fascists are growing stronger. But, sadly, not strong enough among our Roman Catholic brethren. Despite some valiant attempts, like our friends at The American Catholic, the Roman Catholic blogosphere remains insufficiently committed to the task of whiteness witness called for during the Second Vatican Council and the duty of spreading American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and unmatched power. Vatican II got so, so many things wrong. But its statement of the Catholic layman’s duty to fight for Catholic truth in the secular sphere could not be more correct.

And today’s United States of America — overrun as it is with radical feminists, whiny liberals, demasculinized “men,” Middle Eastern terrorists, queer homosexualists, greedy pornographers, burnt out drug addicts, lazy deadbeats, and more — needs Christ’s One True Church more than ever. The Catholic Fascist sees its mission as speaking the One Truth into an ambivalent Roman Catholic blogosphere. Our Holy Father is on a mission to purge the Church of its “filth,” and we aim to proclaim and contribute to this cleansing in a way fitting to Internet-connected lay Catholic men.

A note about the blog’s title. Certain minority factions of the Catholic blogosphere have taken to calling conservative Catholics — that is to say TRUE Catholics — “fascists,” a move that is not merely hateful but ignorant of history. Everyone knows that fascists have historically been liberals. Our blog title is not meant to concede that we are “fascists” in the historical sense but to proudly reclaim the word ironically as we boast of the conservative Gospel of Jesus Christ. If promoting the truth is considered “fascist” by the Catholic Left, so be it. Catholic fascists we are.

And the descriptions of the contributors are priceless:

Richard Hedges is a veteran, a retired lawyer, and the most faithful, orthodox Catholic you will ever meet. He attends the 6:05 AM Traditional Latin Mass each Sunday at St. Barbara Catholic Shrine at Fort Archer Air Force Base. He is also the founder of The Catholic Fascist and a future contributor to Inside Catholic.

Dave Lister is author of the book The Wave of the Future. Get your copy today.

Joe Pantsonfire is a young orthodox Catholic from the western United States. He is burning with the Holy Spirit and with righeous anger against those enemies of the Church, especially inside the Church, who want sociopathic Mexicans to over-run our beautitful God-given birthright, and want to take away our guns – our only defense against these and other threatening sociopaths. He is on a mission to purge the Church from error – liberalism, socialism, Europeanism, and pacifism, and other assorted dangers to our precious American way of life.

Dan McLockinload lives in a small town. He was born in 1896, and has seen it all (even though he has never left his small town). He has seen his precious country destroyed by liberals, socialists, and progressives. He believes that the founding fathers were all anonymous Catholics, and that the American revolution was guided by Catholic beliefs – faith, family, weapons, low taxes, small government, freedom, states rights, a strong military. There is nowhere on earth like the United States, and there never ever will be. The pope knows that. Glory and praise to the American martyrs!

Lady Macbeth was born and raised in Topeka, Kansas, attended Hillsdale College in Michigan, and received her Ph.D in Strategic Leadership from Regent University in Virginia. Possessing the Truth taught by her beloved Catholic Church and the Founding Fathers of her great country, Lady Macbeth wars against liars and falsifiers wherever they may be found, but especially in the blogosphere. She believes ardently in the combined power of Absolute Moral Truth and American Military Might to bring Salvation to deserving peoples around the world. She loaths relativists of all sorts and wimps who decry doing whatever is necessary to bring freedom, safety, and security to the globe. When it comes to defending the Truth, her thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!

Parker Euton is a 25 year old Catholic convert, community college student, and self-taught theologian. He agrees with most of his blog collaborators, but disagrees that the root cause of decay in America and the Catholic Church is liberalism and socialism. No, it is sodomy. Parker is anxiously awaiting God’s choice for his wife to come along, so if anyone can help God out by offering rosaries for this intention, he would be most grateful. His future wife should know that he is already in possession of a thermometer.

ROFLMAO!!! I think more and more people are getting fed up with that ilk and their claims to monopoly on what it means to be Catholic, especially the bizarre alliance with the Republican Party...

Good News?

I need some good news. Anyone got any??

Orthodox Primacy and Ecclesiology

I want to refer everyone to this post on Fr. Z, where an extremely fascinating discussion has developed in the comments thread, that addresses many substantive points related to ecclesiology when it comes to ecumenism with the Orthodox.

The consensus seems to be that the Pope's move to drop the title "Patriarch of the West" is baffling, and is not terribly helpful ecumenically, because that title is actually very useful in terms of working to establish a mode of administration acceptable to the East. The Orthodox certainly never objected to that title, in fact it is one of the most acceptable to them. But the discussion gets into the broader issue of primacy and ecclesiology in the East.

I would specifically like to point out and recommend that everyone read very carefully the comment by PaterAugustinus, an Eastern Orthodox poster, whose comments on the Orthodox notion of Primacy are level-headed and amazing enlightening (and potentially show a path acceptable to both sides, or at least with a lot of common ground):

I think there are probably a few issues here.

When it comes to the Orthodox, I think the hostile reaction to the titular change has been mostly irrational. I myself am Orthodox, so I hope nobody will think I am polemicizing against “the enemy.” Modern-day Orthodox Christians think of the Pope primarily as “Patriarch of the West,” and so the rejection of the title is interpreted by some as a rejection of the Orthodox position vis-a-vis the Papacy. This view of the Papacy, I think, comes from a modern Orthodox tendency to over-emphasize conciliarity, largely as an over-reaction to Primacy, even where Primacy is legitimate.

But when push comes to shove, pure Orthodox theology does not only think of the Pope as “one Patriarch amongst Patriarchs.” We see in Rome the highest and most complete manifestation of Petrine Primacy. What is “Petrine Primacy” in Orthodox Ecclesiology?

Following St. Cyprian of Carthage, and what we believe to be the consensus of Tradition, we do not hold that each bishop is a successor primarily to the bishop who founded his see, but rather, that each bishop is a successor to the unity of the Apostolic Choir, and to the one Throne of Peter. If bishops are sometimes spoken of as successors to their see’s founder, we do not take this to be a description of the ontological nature or genesis of their Apostolic succession.

From there, we acknowledge how the Fathers repeatedly state that all the Apostles were what Peter himself was… but, that Peter was singled out so as to show forth the unity of the manifold Apostolic Choir. We therefore conceive of Petrine Primacy as the re-presentation of this Petrine function of leadership and coordination (“re-present” in the sense of recapitulation, manifestation, incarnation – just as the Mass “re-presents” the Sacrifice on Calvary), wherever it occurs, in a spectrum of Primatial offices. We do not think of Petrine Primacy as a direct succession from Peter, for the reasons I stated above.

Yet, many Orthodox have resorted to emphasizing the unity of the Apostolic Choir (and the bishops’ succession thereto) with such force, that even legitimate primacy is surpressed. They affirm that all bishops are equals. They are right, but only to a point. Orthodoxy recognizes the equality of all bishops in terms of the ontological nature of the episcopacy. Yet, primacy is not therefore a purely “accidental” (as in “the opposite of ontological”) matter of Church discipline and canons, as some Orthodox are inclined to see it. Many elements of the exercise of primacy may be accidental and variable matters of practice – i.e., must every archbishop receive the Pallium/Patriarchal approval to exercise his office? Does the archbishop’s vote break a tie when the synod is split? etc. – but the presence of these accidental elements of Primacy, does not discard the ontological place of Primacy in the Church. Orthodoxy sees Primacy as an admixture of ontological and accidental elements. What is ontological, is that the Church is a communion of Churches, and that each Church is headed by a bishop whose episcopacy is, ontologically, the same episcopacy as every other bishop’s (hence, the Church is not a juridical hierarchy of episcopal administration, but a communion of equal sister-Churches). Yet, also ontological, is the fact that this communion of Churches should be manifestly united, and that this unity is manifested in the primacy of one bishop/Church amongst others. This happens on every level, from the local, to the regional, to the universal. Just as Peter was not “more Apostolic” than other Apostles, these hierarchs are not “more episcopal” than their brother bishops, and their Churches are not “more Catholic” than other Churches, let alone are they the predicators of Catholicity for other Churches (just as Peter was not the predicate of the other Apostles’ apostolicity). Catholicity subsists in the proper relation of Churches to the Primacy, and the Primacy’s possession of Catholicity in harmony with the sister-Churches.

In fact, we almost have to reject Orthodox Bishop John Zizioulas’ staunch affirmation that every local Church is Catholic in and of herself, by the sole virtue of a valid episcopate in her one bishop. This could only be true if it were impossible for that bishop to be in communion with sister Churches (either because he was the last bishop left, or he was unable to coordinate with them in times of persecution, etc.). A Church without some manifestation of Primacy would utterly fail to be truly Catholic, because the Catholic Church is Apostolic and the Apostolic Choir had a Primacy in Peter, the Apostolic Prince. The Apostles are the Churches fundament (with Christ as the Headstone of the Corner).

So, since we see Petrine Primacy in the Church as the exercising of that kind of Primacy, which Peter had (and NOT as the personal primacy of Peter himself received by some kind of direct succession), we see the Petrine Primacy as existing in an archbishop, a metropolitan archbishop, a patriarch… and, indeed, as culminating in the Pope – whom we would reckon, in normal circumstances, as veritably the highest and most complete “icon” of the Petrine Primacy (remember what an icon is for the Orthodox). In the Pope of Rome, historically, all primacy is crowned and consummated (in terms of the Church’s episcopacy). He is not just one bishop amongst equal bishops (though he is that, too).

The reason the Orthodox do not feel bound by the Papal Primacy at the present time, is because we do not, as I said, view the Primacy as one of juridical authority first and foremost (though we do admit that the Church may accord many juridical prerogatives to Primacy as a matter of changeable praxis). Any juridical prerogatives, however, are understood in the context of the ontological, and not the accidental, elements of Primacy. I.e., they are to be honored with all deference, except when grave circumstances call for opposition or protest – currently, Orthodox Christianity feels that such circumstances exist, and while we are sad to see that communion with Rome is broken, we do not see ourselves as bereft of Primacy, since we see the Primacy as subsisting on so many levels.

For the time being, the Patriarch of Constantinople holds the supreme Primacy in the Orthodox Church… though, it should be pointed out that this does not mean that all the canonical and practical prerogatives of the erstwhile Roman Primacy have simply devolved upon the Constantinopolitan See for Orthodox Christianity. The current Constantinopolitan Primacy is subject to the already extant, customary prerogatives of Constantinople, and any others the Orthodox Church should care to accord it. Which, so far, have been non-existent. Constantinople’s primacy is expressed almost entirely in an honorific way, without juridical prerogatives amongst the other Patriarchates (beyond having the seat of honour in Council). He has not been accorded even the most basic privilege of the Roman Primacy – that of “last court of appeal” in super-Patriarchal-level disputes.

Obviously, Catholicism and Orthodoxy disagree with each other on the nature of these matters at the present time – both the nature of Primacy and the nature of the schism dividing us. I don’t want to discuss all that here, obviously; I’m simply trying to give the Orthodox perspective, so that the Orthodox reaction to the Pope’s titular change can be understood.

To bring things to the point, then: I think the Orthodox reaction to the title-change comes from two fountainheads. 1) The fact that many Orthodox Christians are perhaps not as clear on our theology of Primacy as they should be, and so they think that the only title (beyond “Bishop of Rome”) which we are happy to grant the Pope, is precisely “Patriarch of the West” (by which they mean “the Pope is the boss of his own Patriarchate, but otherwise equal in every respect to the other Patriarchs”). For these Orthodox Christians, the rejection of the title seems to be a break from the only role the Papacy could play in a reunified East and West. 2) Even amongst Orthodox who do know that the Pope is more than the Western Patriarch, who confess that he does have pre-eminence amongst the Patriarchs and should hold some sway over them, the title is still seen as an accurate description of one element of his office (he is Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, and Pope of the Universal Church) – and so, the rejection of the title seems to be a rejection of what the Orthodox consider a legitimate element of the Papacy… which makes them hesitant about reunion with a Papacy, that seems not to understand itself.

Believe it or not, the Orthodox hesitancy about reunion with the West is just as much about the aggregate perception of “lesser issues,” as it is about the big doctrines of the Papal Infallability, the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, etc. Especially since Vatican II, but going all the way back to Scholasticism and the Counter-Reformation, Orthodoxy observes what seems to us like a radical and widespread alteration of Christian piety and identity within Catholicism. We are reticent to reunite with a Catholicism experiencing widespread breakdowns in liturgical sensibilities, radical feminist nuns and even disbelief in fundamental doctrines (like the Real Presence). And, we know that many Catholics are trying to combat those things, and we are rooting for you all! But, even beyond these very modern problems, we are also concerned about things like the spirituality of the Spiritual Excercises (of Ignatius Loyola), the genesis and nature of the “Sacred Heart” devotion, even kneeling on Sundays and the celebration of “Low” masses, etc. – things, which even traditional Catholics would support, but which seem to us to indicate necessarily fundamental shifts in historic, Christian piety… not individually, of course, but in aggregate. Reunion for us wouldn’t involve merely clearing up the issue of the Pope’s authority, but the much more difficult matter of trying to figure out what makes the Catholicism “tick,” that could develop these devotions and attitudes. Do we simply misunderstand the spirit of Catholicism? Or, has there been a genuine breakdown in matters of historic, Apostolic piety? Can we unite with the spirituality of modern Catholicism, over and above mere agreement in dogmatic formulae? In this context, the Pope’s omission of what we consider to be a very legitimate and historically important title, simply enhances our feeling that Catholicism is struggling with a major identity crisis, in the long process of forgetting herself. If that’s the case, this is not a good time for reunion – though, it is always a good time for honest, sober and well-intentioned dialogue.

I hope y’all can understand this as the expression of (one) Orthodox opinion, and know that it is not meant in an hostile or polemical spirit. In point of fact, modern-day Orthodoxy is also forgetting herself, fairly frequently. So, there is ground for concern, all-around. And our God is good, so there is also ample ground for hope!

For my part, I don’t think the Pope was trying to push a message of subjugation to the other Patriarchs. I know that conciliarity and reconciliation is dear to this Pope’s heart, above all with the Orthodox Churches. It seems to me that this was more a fraternal gesture to the bishops of Catholicism – an attempt to affirm the confidence in the local churches’ episcopal conferences, by downplaying the Pope’s role as “Patriarch of the West.” Perhaps he even wanted to distance the Papacy from a term, which in modernist circles is especially vilified (who hasn’t hear radicals rant against “the Patriarchy?”). Probably much of the Orthodox reaction was not anticipated, and I don’t think he even had us in mind when he made the decision.

Of course, I could be wrong; I haven’t followed the politics well, nor the Pope’s own expressions of the rationale for the change. Mostly, I just hope I illustrated the context, of how his decision has been perceived by the Orthodox… most of whom are similarly unaware of any personal statement of the Pope, regarding the rationale for the change in title.

PaterAugustinus -- 8 August 2010 @ 2:21 AM