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

In Orthodoxy the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made manifest in each of the local Churches through the common profession of the Orthodox faith and the celebration of the liturgy; while -- on the other hand -- the Western Scholastic teaching divides the Church into disparate parts that are only later united through a juridical concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome. That said, I am quite happy to see that the Ravenna Document has embraced the former ecclesiology and rejected the latter.

Divisions exist where humans do, and maybe the Russians were wrong, and maybe they are right. Any fault can be laid at the door of pride.
Fortunately there is more to it than being an ecclesiastical version of the Elks Club. The Orthodox Church (i.e. the local churches that comprise this church) professes and states that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. You may see things differently, but that is the belief of the church.

Doesn't the Catholic Church claim to be a collection of local churches that share a common faith and communion, or have I been misled in that?

Two statements were issued in the early 20th century IIRC, one by Constantinople and one by the Romanian Church that stated Anglican ordinations could be considered valid if/when the churches came in to communion, but not before. The churches of course never did, nor has there ever been intercommunion between the churches. The present stance vis-a-vis Anglican clerics is that if they convert to Orthodoxy, they enter as laymen. This was the same policy at the time. My understanding of the Catholic position is that due to the Edwardian Ordinal Anglican orders were not considered valid, but that due to Old Catholic involvement there is now some question, so that in some cases priests or bishops are ordained conditionally and not outright. I personally find the Orthodox position clearer and more uniform.
Yes, it's called prayer, confession, fasting and attending liturgy. It is the life of the church that informs how one should live and act. A well developed set of bioethics and political ethics does not guarantee a flock who will follow or even respect such things. The examples abound.
I'm not a particularly emotional or reasoned person, so at least I didn't hit both. My comment was due to the fact that this particular forum has a sub-section devoted to hand-wringing over the liturgical reforms instituted in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church. It's a hot button issue for some.

Welcome btw!

I don't think it's the job of the church to engage in self censorship over matters in which it is not responsible.

Well said dude!

I should have just quoted you...

Did I hear a match drop somewhere?

Alexandr

Wow,

I think you have managed to miss almost every one of my points, which are as follows:

1. There is a typological distinction between East and West with regard to organizational behavior. Given the complexity of the modern world, Rome has a decided advantage with regard to developing a comprehensive body of teaching capable of addressing all the various issues without contradiction.

2. The Eastern Churches organizationally are autonomous bodies which makes a concerted effort in presenting a comprehensive body of teaching difficult to present. In fact, it is difficult to find the authoritative teachings of the Orthodox Churches on modern issues on the internet. One mostly finds articles by this or that person surmising an Orthodox position based on an analysis of the tradition. But, it is not difficult to see how multiple interpretations can occur.

Okay, so you made your theological point about each local church being the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Yeah, got it. Never said it wasn't. My point was not theological. It was not ecclesiological. My point was a matter of organizational analysis. Can we put the catechism aside for a second and look at the flowchart?

Interesting that I was criticized for saying that pride was an issue in regard to the Russians in the dialogue. Then when I explain that I was just looking for an example of divisiveness among the Orthodox, the response is something like "it's just human pride." Hello? isn't that what I was criticized for saying?

Regarding the Catholic Church, it is both a church as a whole and a communion of local churches. It is a communion of local churches which are together one church. One local church cannot teach of its own accord. No, I would say that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not really the same on this. We dont have meaningful national churches, either.

I could mention a big issue as an example, but I am not sure folks on this board are prepared to handle difficult issues. Having tested the waters here, I am detecting a defensiveness here which may make reasoned conversation difficult. I am not finding much of a spirit of mutual exploration of an idea here.

Disappointing.

Thanks, Gordo, for your reply. I am finding it stunningly difficult to maintain a conversation on here. Even if you did not agree, at least you understood the point I was trying to make rather than pick nits in order to obscure the main point.

Thanks.

Fr. J.

Now now Father. No need to feel disappointment. You are looking at things with a very western pair of glasses. Put away your flowchart and pick up the scriptures. We are Christians, not accountants. You have made repeated references to "modern" problems and "modern" issues, and the "complexity of the modern world". The world, Father, is the same today as it was 2000 years ago. The sins are the same, the temptations are the same. It is just that there have been those in the west that have decided to make things hopelessly complicated and have come up with new names for old things.

The Orthodox position on anything is simply a matter of referencing Scripture and the Church Fathers. We in the East, whether Orthodox or Eastern Catholic put our trust in Christ, not in psychologists or review committees. Pose your "big issue". You may be surprised at what you may learn!

Alexandr

Alexandr,

I am willing to have a good charitable conversation. I dont need to defend Rome on all counts. I have no pride to protect.

As for the complexity or simplicity of the modern world or human nature, I really don't care for pious gloss. I also don't care for being lectured to as if I were a simpleton. If you don't like my analysis, you could do me the favor of just not addressing it.

If you think that you are always the teacher and I always the learner, then we have nothing to discuss.

Fr. J.

Father, no one is asking you to defend Rome at all. To quote you, "As I say, I am a neophyte in this area." Therefore, as a neophyte in the area of Eastern Christianity, you hardly would be qualified to teach it to us. Might I suggest that you consider being a tad more charitable in your postings. I have offered to answer your inquiries. I have received a gauntlet in my face for responding. If you are here to learn, then learn. But spare us another Latin Rite "uberkid"coming here and telling us what we should be.

Alexandr

I have never played an uberkid of any rite. I am not hear to tell anyone how to be. I would simply like to have some balanced conversation in which we look at the main points of each side and address them accordingly without putting words in each others mouths.

My point is that centralized ecclesiastical government has its benefits. The Anglicans are presently floundering precisely because they have no authority that sets boundaries for what is approved and not approved. Their theologians apply all kinds of ridiculous methods to scripture to twist it to say as they wish. If the ABC were more like a pope and willing to use his authority, they may not be on the verge of disintegration.

There it is. Centralized government has its benefits. It allows for flexibility and unity and a comprehensive body of moral and doctrinal teaching.

Now maybe the Orthodox do have a comprehensive teaching or maybe none is necessary. I have gotten both responses so far. Which is it?

I have thrown no gauntlets, I have lit no match. I'm not looking for drama, just good intelligent conversation without name calling.

Jooooooe...

Now a question. In eastern parlance is local church a reference to a diocese or a national church? or both?

I apologize for losing my temper Father. Sometimes on the internet it is difficult to divine intent with the absence of facial expressions or vocal intonation.

Centralized government does have an administrative advantage, but it is the opinion of the East that it has a spiritual disadvantage that makes any administrative advantage moot. And that is the real danger of one man assuming too much authority, which in the eyes of the East, the bishops of Old Rome have done. In the East however, all bishops are equal. And collectively stand watch that one of their number does not fall into error or overstep that which God has entrusted to him.

As far as a comprehensive compendium on Moral teaching, it is there. The Scriptures and the Church Fathers. This is not "pious gloss". Everything we do, see, hear and believe derives from these 2 sources. Whatever question you could pose can be answered from these 2 sources.

Alexandr

It could mean both depending on the situation at hand. In most matters, it means national.

There are many factors in the modern world that give the Pentecostals a distinct advantage in gaining new adherants. Does that mean they're right? No, but it has to be conceded they have an advantage due to their conception of the church. I don't deny there are advantages to a centralized Papacy, that doesn't mean I think it's right (or that it doesn't have its disadvantages).

In terms of contradiction, I see plenty when looking at the teaching of the RCC as compared to the past.
The dogmatic content of the faith is unified across all of the autonomous churches in communion with one another that form the Orthodox Church. I would say it is also readily accessible. The RCC has an advantage in that it has a centralized mechansim for the dispersal of information pertaining to the workings of the ordinary magisterium, i.e. their way of interpreting the dogmatic tradition of the church. That doesn't mean that people in the Catholic world don't argue and dispute over the non infallible proclomations of the church, which obviously compose just about all of what would be considered the ongoing teaching of the church.
No, I said if there is division, whether between churches or within a parish council, it is a natural effect of the interaction of humans. Anything can be attributed to pride is what I said, not that the Russians are guilty of it. Pride in my opinion is a throw away term. It is completely subjective. Anyone who takes a stand on principle could be accused of pride.

No local Orthodox Church could depart in its dogmatic teaching from any of the others.
Then why have various particular churches side by side in the same area? Just to offer a plethora of liturgical options? Is the Catholic Church really just a single church with a bunch of liturgical rites?

A particular church is an expression of national, or better yet, cultural identity. It is formed and shaped in a disctint cultural mileu that gives it its own unique expression. That is absolutely the only valid reason to have multiple particular churches present in the same geographic area.

If the statement were put forward that there are no meaningful national churches on that side of the fence, this would give me pause:
http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=70&IndexView=toc

Because it seems to me the Ukrainian Church not only exists as a distinct national church, but that the Ruthenian church exists essentially within its territory because they themselves wish to continue as a distinct national church.