Perspective, ,

Pontifically Ecumenical

I’m not really sure as to what happened to Fr. Al Kimel’s Ponifications Blog, but it appears to be gone. He had a temporary space at WordPress.com, and perhaps, that is where he’s going, but who knows.

I recall reading that he was planning on moving the blog – and he well may have, but I’m not going to perform an exhaustive search for it.

As one of my web design mentors, Dean, at Heal Your Church Website might say, mystery meat navigation is bad enough, but non-navigation is completely wrong. If you are going to move a site, at least leave clues (Col. Mustard in the library with a pipe 😉 ).

I searched a few of the usual suspects like Sacramentum Vitae, but no news. While there I did find a pointer to an argument Fr. Kimel and his Orthodox correspondents were engaged in (see: Not talking about God) which pointed to Not Yet Ecumenical from Energetic Procession.

It was the typical point and counter-point of the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. Nothing I want to cover in this post though. The PNCC and Orthodoxy are on the same page on these issues anyway.

The quote from Not Yet Ecumenical that struck me was as follows:

Third, Fr. Kimel’s —ecumenical— approach isn’t yet ecumenical. To be ecumenical he needs to recognize the legitimacy of the other in terms of the other. Orthodoxy has to be seen to be legitimate on its own terms. It cannot be ecumenically engaged by either reducing its teachings to some other Latin expression in a dismissive fashion or arguing contrary to fact that its distinctives don’t hold the weight of the teaching authority of the Orthodox Church. These are both strategies that Fr. Kimel has employed rather routinely.

Nor is it ecumenical to dismiss Orthodox commentators as —polemicists— who are only interested in seeing Rome as heterodox. It never enters Fr. Kimel’s mind that they might have some measure of rational justification for thinking so. And yet the Orthodox are supposed to take seriously the dogmatic claim by Rome that the Orthodox are at least materially heterodox. What Fr. Kimel’s whine amounts to is the old canard that the Orthodox are just instrinisically [sic] sinful and schismatic. To even speak of the same common faith that we are to work towards presupposes the Catholic view of things, that we do in fact have a common faith. That has to be demonstrated, from the Orthodox view, rather than assumed. And this I think picks out a major difference between us. Communion for the Orthodox will depend on a demonstration and not the judgment of a singular authority.

That’s it in a nutshell. That is why great care must be taken when speaking of dialog with the Roman Church.

The table you sit at, with the Roman Church, allows for the dialog – it is conducive to that. The table allows for on-going grievances and difficulties to be aired, but the table, regardless of its shape, still represents sides and positions.

The Roman Church, by its sheer size, weight, and attachment to certain stumbling block dogmas, while at the same time adhering to (albeit in an unspoken way) extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not in a position to bind up wounds and heal divisions. All of us, in the Catholic fold, excepting Rome, are inherently schismatic in their eyes, and anyone who lives apart from the Pope is not fully Catholic.

I’m not saying these things because of Fr. Kimel’s positions. He is certainly a top notch apologist and polemicist. He has personal axes to grind with the folks in TEC that let him down. He found solace in the strictures and rule books of Roman Catholicism, which is fine for him. At some point the hurt will lessen, the polemics and staunchness will wear down, and faith, the core element of hope will come out on top.

As to the general theme of dialog, the final quote from the Not Yet Ecumenical post sums up the problem of ecumenical dialog with Rome:

And to even ask when Orthodoxy dogmatized this question is to measure Orthodoxy by [Roman] Catholic standards. It didn’t and doesn’t need too because it is in the Fathers and the Liturgy. It’s called Tradition, not a dictionary.

Indeed the Roman Church’s sine qua non for unity is adherence to its terms, conditions, and definitions.

When the PNCC, or Orthodoxy for that matter, are admitted in the door as full living Churches with their own character and practices, which are at heart fully Catholic, then I’ll believe it is otherwise. Else wise we must continue to pray and talk.

2 thoughts on “Pontifically Ecumenical

  1. “To be ecumenical he needs to recognize the legitimacy of the other in terms of the other. Orthodoxy has to be seen to be legitimate on its own terms.”

    What does this mean? What is legitimacy? There is truth
    and only truth! We may disagree as what truth is, but
    “legitimacy” smacks too much of “truth.” If legitimacy
    means “theological position”, the Roman Catholic Church
    has acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches interpret
    and explain Christian truths in their own legitimate
    Eastern terms. Orthodoxy, however, rejects Catholic
    scholastic theology as illegitimate. Also, the Catholic
    Church calls the Orthodox Church “a Sister Church”,
    but some Orthodox will not say the same about the
    Catholic Church. Talk about legitimacy!

    ——-

    As for the “the weight of the teaching authority of the Orthodox Church”, this is a legitimate Catholic
    concern. Some Orthodox Churches will not have communion
    with others; some Orthodox Churches insist on use of
    the Old Calendar; some Orthodox Churches state that
    they do not recognize the autocephalous or autonomous
    declaration of others. These are confusing and
    contradictory ecclesial positions within Orthodoxy.
    Who is to decide which Orthodox Church is Orthodox
    and correct?

    ——

    “And yet the Orthodox are supposed to take seriously the dogmatic claim by Rome that the Orthodox are at least materially heterodox.” This is false! Rome has
    stated that the Orthodox are in “schism”, not
    heresy. Some (but not all) Orthodox churches claim
    that Rome is heterodox; others claim the opposite.
    Again, which Orthodox church is correct?

    ——–

    “All of us, in the Catholic fold, excepting Rome, are inherently schismatic in their eyes, and anyone who lives apart from the Pope is not fully Catholic.”

    This is essentially the same as the Orthodox position:
    “Everyone who claims to be Orthodox, except the
    ‘canonical’ Orthodox, are inherently schismatic in
    their eyes, and anyone who who lives apart from the
    ‘canonical’ churches is not fully Orthodox.” The
    Orthodox Churches do NOT believe in the “branch”
    theory of Catholicism – only Anglo-Catholics and the
    myriad of Old Catholic groups do so.

    ——–

    “And to even ask when Orthodoxy dogmatized this question is to measure Orthodoxy by [Roman] Catholic standards. It didn’t and doesn’t need to because it is in the Fathers and the Liturgy. It’s called Tradition, not a dictionary.”

    But WHO decides what is in the Fathers and Liturgy and
    what is Tradition? That is the question that the
    Orthodox cannot seem to answer. It still must be
    asked and answered and agreed upon by all Orthodox
    Churches.

    ——-

    “Indeed the Roman Church’s sine qua non for unity is adherence to its terms, conditions, and definitions.”

    No, the Roman Catholic Church’s position is that
    other churches must UNDERSTAND its terms, conditions,
    and definitions. The Orthodox position is the same.
    From that, you go on to discuss WHEN and WHERE you can
    AGREE on religious terms and definitions and when you cannot. Then, you discuss WHY you do not agree.

    ——-

    “When the PNCC, or Orthodoxy for that matter, are admitted in the door as full living Churches with their own character and practices, which are at heart fully Catholic, then I’ll believe it is otherwise. Else wise we must continue to pray and talk.”

    But, you see, if you ‘are at heart fully Catholic’,
    then there is NO need to talk. There is already full
    communion – such as with the Eastern Catholic
    Churches. You are putting the cart before the horse.
    But, you are correct about ‘pray and talk’. As
    Christians we must do that. For the rest, we rely on
    God.

  2. First, I cannot reply to much of what you write regarding Orthodoxy. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of a canonically Orthodox Church and as such I don’t see myself as being able to adequately represent their positions.

    The PNCC and the Orthodox Church share in many agreed statements, and the PNCC probably shares more theologically with Orthodoxy than the PNCC does with Roman Catholicism.

    To your first point, I think legitimacy, in this context, means adhering to the truth. I’ll bite on this one and play Pontius Pilate: “truth, what does that mean.” Notice the small “t.”

    That’s one of the essential problems. Small “t” truths which are simply small “t” traditions like celibacy aren’t even handled equitably within the Roman Church.

    Look at Byzantine Catholics in union with Rome as represented in the United States. They cannot express themselves on their own terms or with their own character (re: celibacy is not required of their priests except in the U.S.).

    Recognizing legitimacy means that we would all have to respect the innate catholicism of the other, and the fact that we all proclaim essential truth apart from small “t” traditions. We would have to do that without seeking to impose our traditions on the other (for example something the Young Fogey often points to, i.e., the latinization of the Byzantine traditions).

    Also, I think ‘sister churches’ is an artistic construct which plays well to the folks in the pew, while at the same time meaning something completely different in the theological and ecumenical language of the Roman Church (see the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith’s Note On The Expression “Sister Churches”).

    The Orthodox Churches cannot be seen as legitimate strictly within an Eastern construct. They either are or are not Catholic. I believe them to be so (not that my untrained opinion really matters).

    As to the question on dogmatics, the Orthodox and the PNCC seem to have a pretty strong ecclesiology, without having a Pope. I think we would all agree that something is not dogma apart from the concurrence of the whole Church in a truly Ecumenical Council.

    On talking, talking is legitimate and can promote understanding. Better yet, it is a place to discuss issues that would otherwise erupt into unfortunate internecine conflicts. The PNCC does consider itself to be fully Catholic and we admit those holding to Catholic faith, beliefs, and practices to the Eucharist.

    In Christ’s body we have our unity. Perhaps, one day, you and I will share in the Holy Eucharist together. May the Holy Spirit guide us and may Mary intercede for us.

Comments are closed.