www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ravenna Document

If anything remotely resembling Ravenna were implemented, I don't think there would be a Catholicism left for Eastern Orthodoxy to re-unite with in any event.

As for favorites for pontiff, my two favorites would be Cardinal Arinze and Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir.

I await the day that Pius XIII assumes the papacy.

Best,
Robster

Rob,

I think that this is the catch-22 that Catholicism finds itself in. In order to unite with the east, concessions toward more autonomy for bishops would have to be made. Yet, those very same concessions will enable the radical wing in the west to further promote deviations from the faith.

Joe

Thanks for the welcome, Joe.

I have already found it stimulating.

Recently, I heard that there was no such thing as a Melkite Orthodox Church and that it was the only Eastern Church never to have broken with Rome. Judging from your screenname, I may have to tell that person that there IS a Melkite O. C. What is the story? I am interested.

I think this is exactly right. There are fundamental differences between the religious cultures of East and West. Eastern unity and survival are based on an unchanging fidelity to ancient texts. Though I love the Eastern liturgies I have attended, I cannot help but think there is a need for some at least minor reforms. But Eastern reform is virtually unthinkable.

Western religious culture is concerned with maintaining relevance in regard to the culture. This is both a good thing and a problem. The only way to have some doctrinal and liturgical flexibility while maintaining unity is to have a strong central government. The other alternative is to break into a million pieces. Just look at the Anglicans. Rome may have its problems, but it is paradise compared to Protestantism.

In my own thinking, there are two major variables and three church "types."

Stability and diffused government--Orthodoxy,
Flexibility and diffused government--Protestantism
Flexibility and central government--Catholicism

Nearly absolute stability may never require a centralized govt.

Also, such stability means having no new teachings. One of the strengths of Catholicism is that it is the only Christian institution which attempts to have a doctrinal or moral teaching on everything under the sun. It is engaged in the moral questions of our time in a way that other churches are not or perhaps cannot be. The CC can do this because of its central authority.

Orthodoxy tends to avoid modern questions and does not have mechanism for speaking authoritatively and in unison on so many issues. What would it mean to have One eastern church pronounce one way and another differently on the same moral, liturgical, or doctrinal matter?

I think we have seen in just recent weeks what happens on just practical matters of governance such as the question of the Estonian church: pride and division.

Actually, this has been the position in the Catholic Church for quite some time. You can even see it reflected in the old Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of an Ecumenical Council:


The fact that a Council is not regarded as truly "Ecumenical" does not remove the binding nature of its decrees from the perspective of the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church does not even have an official list of "Ecumenical Councils"; some Councils are viewed as universally binding and some aren't, but their technical classification hasn't been viewed as of utmost importance in most cases. The Council of Orange is a perfect example of this reality.

It should also be noted that the First and Second Vatican Councils are not at all merely tossed out by this document. In fact, they are specifically referenced in paragraph 45 as having a place in future dialogue:


The matter is still quite open, but it's clear that there will not be a quick and easy severance of Catholic and Orthodox views on the Papacy, nor of our respective "Ecumenical" Councils.

Peace and God bless!

Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh states the following:


http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8038.asp

The church kept on having councils after the schism, which even if not called "ecumenical" (and the 8th and 9th did actually refer to themselves that way as it happens), these councils form part of the dogmatic tradition of the church. That is the important point. It is indeed likely the thorniest issue.

A good overview of the whole council issue can be found here - http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net...nt&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28


I think it goes beyond concessions toward more autonomy, I think it would really be a significant deconstruction of the Papacy as it has developed. That is not a re-ordering of how the house is run, that's a theological earthquake.

I think I just heard a match dropped in a powder keg somewhere.


It "tends to avoid modern issues". That's strange, I hadn't noticed that before.

What are all these issues the church can't speak on, I am quite curious.


I guess that would all depend on the "matter".


That seems like an unfriendly statement to me. Is there no pride and division among Catholics? Or is there something "Eastern" about that?

Father,

I used to be Melkite. I was Melkite for 12 years, my wife was raised Roman Catholic. We both joined the Antiochian Orthodox Church last January. I guess I haven't really seen any reason to change my name. Also, I have a fondness for the Melkite Church and still have many friends there.

Joe

Father-

There is a "Melkite Orthodox Church". It's the Antiochian Orthodox Church. The two were one church until 1724.

That claim is frequently, I believe, made by the Maronites. Similar in some ways (Middle Eastern, strong presence in Lebanon) but different in many others.

Ghosty,

I really think that the solution to reunification will be one that is new.

When this happens, there will be no Melkite Catholic Church any more.

Doesn't he live in Kansas or something?

Oh wait, that's Pope Michael.

I wasn't trying to make an unfriendly statement or point to pride and division as if they were uniquely Orthodox vices. I think we can all agree that pride and divisiveness are universally human temptations. I was attempting to point to an instance in which all Orthodox churches save the Russian are in agreement that the Russian church was out of line. Perhaps I misunderstand that situation or perhaps it isn't the best example. But, hey throw me a bone.

My point is that there isnt really an "Eastern Church" as much as their is a collection of Eastern Churches which do at least on occasion come to differing conclusions on various matters. In the early 20th Century there was intercommunion between some Orthodox Churches and Anglicanism. Some churches made this move, some did not. They were in communion with each other but not in agreement on whether their communion extended to Anglicanism. That sounds a little messy to me. I'm not trying to pick a fight but to make a point about organizational systems. Orthodoxy has a different organizational system than Catholicism. The Catholic system gives it the capacity to deal comprehensively with the plethora of modern issues. For instance, do Orthodox Churches have a well developed and systematic approach to bioethics, end of life issues etc.? Do they have a well developed and comprehensive political ethics?

I'm not trying to start a fight here. I'm trying to have a conversation about organizational theory.

Well said, Father. This has and continues to be the central issue with me as to why I have not entered the Orthodox Church: the loss of a fundamental magisterial unity such that we are faced with the reality of a conciliar Church that is tragically paralyzed and ironically unable to call councils. This is not a matter of gloating on the Catholic side. But it is a tragedy for Orthodoxy, IMHO. (And a loss for ALL of us...)

Others, not surprisingly, disagree with this assessment. And that is fine. My love for the Orthodox and the Orthodox Churches remain. I just wish they could unify.

Gordo

Like I say, I am new here, but I would hope we can have a good conversation without letting emotions get in the way. I am in a university environment and reasoned conversation is our stock in trade.

Well, there were a few things that as a Westerner I though could use some minor revision in the liturgy. There were a couple of references to the Jews that struck my ear wrong. After the holocaust we have to be careful how we speak about the Jewish people. I dont remember the exact quote, though, so I cant discuss it properly here.

The other thing that stands out to me is the incensing in the sanctuary during the epistle. Just seems distracting to a congregation which is trying to listen to the Word of God.

There are just some small things like that that struck me. I certainly did not mean "reform" as in Vat. II reform, if that is what you are thinking. Even I would think that a big mistake.

For full disclosure I am neither wedded to the Novus Ordo as now celebrated nor pining for the return to Trent. I am eager to see a new form which blends the two. Most Catholics IMHO are not eager for a return to the old form but would be open to a greater transcendence, reverence and elevated aesthetic than the current form gives.

Again, I have no interest in throwing gauntlets and no interest at having them thrown at me. I am just looking for an intellectual community in which I can sharpen my thoughts on these matters. I hope I have found it here.

God Bless all.

Father,

I do not believe that this is practiced universally. It is not been done in any of the parishes I have attended.

I for one would favor a restoration of the intonation of Psalm 24 at the Great Entrance.

God bless,

Gordo