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

I understand, it is a difficult medium, and it is easy to come across the wrong way.

I do take seriously, and the Catholic Church takes seriously Eastern ecclesiology. This is why we are seeing the theology of communion coming to the fore at this time, which is a development even beyond Vat. II. The Catholic Church is moving.

I suspect that some of the problems between East and West can only be resolved in a joint ecumenical council between East and West that would advance a theology of resolution. Even should this happen, it may take a long time for it to be accepted--look how long it took for Nicea/Chalcedon to be accepted throughout!!

But, such a resolution will come when we have all been converted back to the Christ whose image is upon us all through baptism and the sacraments. Again, this is a matter of hermeneutics. Suspicion, distrust, contempt, all these things cloud our vision and render the imperative impossible. It is not first a logical problem, but a spiritual one on all sides.

Dear Father J.,

This is incredibly well said. May our Lord God soften our hearts so that this family can once again be whole and reunited in love.

Respectfully in Christ our Lord,
Alice

I appreciate your thoughts, AMM. What I want to say though is that none of us can presume what the Spirit might be doing or do in the future. Even when we desire not to be polemical in our posts here, we carry the polemical baggage of our traditions with us, myself included.

But when we put that baggage aside and see each other first as brothers in Christ, the Spirit has a way of thawing our hearts and minds. As the various parties before Nicea could not have imagined what the Spirit did at Nicea, so we cannot imagine what the Spirit might do in a future council uniting the divided church. I think Catholic and Orthodox we all have to come to terms with our need for converstion to overcome our divisions and fulfill Christ's desire for his church.

HEY YOU GUYS!!!

Don't make me post another goofy picture and cause this interesting thread to be closed down!

Play nice!

What impresses me is Fr. John Steele's irenic treatment of the varied subjects spawned by the OP, knowing that the facelessness of the Internet forum like ours is altogether a different medium from his daily encounters with the young and impressionable college-age students at Notre Dame.

There have been a few Latin Rite Catholic priests who have ventured this way but who somehow withdrew from discussions for reasons I cannot speculate on. Fr. John's insights, unique in a sense, are refreshing!

And, I am certain, as a long-time participant in Byzcath, that Andrew's (AMM) posts, particularly in this thread, do not come as polemical even as he rejoices in his being Orthodox. His continuing dialogue with the Catholic members of this board, Eastern and Roman, is welcomed by us and wish that Orthodox posters like him also continue to do so.

All is well and, hopefully, these edifying exchanges enlightened those of us who seek mutual understanding between our "sister" Churches!

AMDG,

Amado

There is a subtle, but important, difference between Political Correctness and diplomacy. The latter can be seen as an exercise of charity on an official level.

On a practical level, diplomacy means being extremely careful and circumspect when making a statement that *might* be taken as inflammatory. Bear in mind that you are conversing with people who hold diverse opinions on these matters, and that they deserve respect.

Putting an end to schism involves discerning God's will for His Church by acquiring a better understanding of both "the other" position and "our own."

Yes, there are plenty of people on both sides who see no reason to have discussions with "those heretics," but that is not what we are doing here.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I agree and believe the document reflects that.


I agree.


I agree.


Ultimately such a thing would go beyond the division of East and West, but the healing of all division. What is actually most important to me about this point is that we should put aside any notion that there are "fixes" for the church that can approximate what inner conversion brings about. The Papacy, another Emporer, another Ecumenical Council, etc. - none of those can fix the church. The fix is us, and that's why I brought up the point about the royal priesthood. It is only through our participation in the church and the upholding of its mission can the church be fixed or made better. The responsibility is ours as much as it is the hierarchy of the church, inner transformation cannot be pushed down from above. Honestly the one critique I have of your views of the Papacy is actually not your take on the theology behind it, but what I believe is an overly optimistic view of what type of change the Papacy is able to effect on the church.


Agree.


Yes, and we are speaking here. This board is conducive to such dialog as well. In real life, there be many Catholics who don't come in contact with Orthodox Christians, but the reverse tends not to be the case.

I come to this forum for frank theological discussions. If that is not what this forum is for; then I would prefer that my account be deleted.

God bless,
Todd

Just a note to say that I think that this has been one of the most stimulating and productive exchanges here.

Joe

Evening all. I am just getting back from wedding rehersals and confessions. On the drive home I was thinking about our conversation here--which has been on my mind all week. It has really been stimulating and a blessing for me.

I was also thinking about the changes in the Catholic Church that have led up to this document. First, the image of the Church in Vat. I is one of headquarters and franchises. The pope as guarantor of the Catholic faith. Bishops were mere outposts. Trent had been the council focused on priesthood, Vatican I on the papacy. This left bishops theologically in a poor position as priests who can do a few other things or as representatives of the pope to the local churches. Some of that flavor remains today, but to a much lesser extent.

Vatican II returned the church theologically to an episcopal centered ecclesiology. With a greater emphasis on the local church and particular churches, a greater appreciation for the Eastern Churches ensued. It is truly telling that Catholic liturgy went in two radically different directions after Vat. II. While altars were being pulled off the back wall and brought toward the people and altar rails being torn out in the Latin liturgy, iconostases were going up in the Eastern Churches.

The next step for the Catholic Church was to learn how to do ecumenical dialogue with other churches. It turned the Protestant "churches" first with some limited progress. But these early efforts turned out to be practice for conversations with the East. In these dialogues, Rome has learned a humility in its diplomacy and in the face of its own history.

Cardinal Ratzinger began to develop a koinoinia based ecclesiology in the 1990's which can be found on the Vatican website.

These are important developments which prepared the way to the Ravenna document. I doubt anyone in the 1950's could have imagined how far we would have come these fifty years.

Agree. Agree. Agree.

From the Ravenna Document:


Can anyone shed some light on the term "protos." It is unknown to me as a term in Latin theology. Is it a common Eastern theological term? What does it mean precisely and what are its senses?

thanks.

Fr. J.

Andrew,

I know that I am just echoing Father, here, but this is perhaps one of the most insightful statements I have read here on this forum pertaining to this topic. I think what you offer here gives me much to ponder personally and for that I thank you.

Of course, I will be pondering it over Starbucks which is brewing as we speak!

God bless,

Gordo

I will also say my compliments to Andrew, Joe and Father John for making this a most engaging and enlightening conversation!

Now back to the discussion at hand...

Gordo