|
Forums26
Topics35,420
Posts416,920
Members6,049
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Somebody has kept you remarkably ill-informed. I invite you to do an internet search and you will see a number of monographs from acknowledged Orthodox theologians, precisely in response to the Pope's invitation to discuss the Roman primacy. Two of significance (Zizoulis and Clement), neither endorsed by any formal ecclesial group. When it comes to primacy, I am reminded of a story told by Metropolitan Kallistos, of a joing Orthodox-Anglican conference he attended. One of the Anglican delegates asked a question of the Orthodox delegates, who went into a huddle that began to drag on for quite a long while. Though voices were low, there was a lot of emphatic gesticulation going on, while the Anglican delegate waited for an answer to his question. Perplexed, after fifteen minutes or so, he interjected, "May I assume that you do not agree on an answer?" Dead silence from the Orthodox. Finally, the head of the delegation drew himself up straight, stared at the Anglican delegate, and replied, "No, we are in perfect agreement. We merely disagree about that with which we are in agreement".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
P.S. It is impossible for the Orthodox to discuss "papal" primacy since the concept of "papacy" is something unacknowledged as a valid ministry by the Orthodox Church. But we can discuss what the primacy of Rome was in the first millennium. A student of Church history would never say anything so foolish. Most certainly thre was a papal primacy in the first millennium, and the Church of Constantinople acknowledged that fact. Was it primacy as defined in the West in the high Middle Ages? Of course not. Neither was it some sort of vestigial "primacy of honor" that reduced the Pope to someone like the Lord Mayor of London whose main job is to cut ribbons at the opening of new shopping malls. Again, knowledge of history does not tie us to the past, it liberates us from our misconceptions about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
We're not in the business of drawing conclusions. If that's how dialogue is to be carried on, then nothing will be accomplished. My goodness! This causes me to doubt that the Orthodox are indeed the bearers of the Byzantine cultural inheritance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968 |
Thanks, Fr. Kimel, for this. A very good article and the conclusion is balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Very well. Please provide the Orthodox with official statements from Rome that papal infallibility is not a mandatory article of faith for Eastern Catholics. Why the insistence on "official" statements? Because it is important for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue for the Orthodox to hear on an official level that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility is not de fide for the 15 million Eastern Catholics. Indeed, to conceal this significant fact from the Orthodox would bring into question the credibility and good will of the Catholic theologians and bishops dialoguing with the Orthodox.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Here is one statement from eight years ago; there have been others in the same vein since then. Really, you are starting to sound like Pauline Kael (formerly New York Times film critic), who complained after the 1972 election of Richard Nixon, "I don't understand how he won--nobody I know voted for him". Synodus Episcoprum Bulletin [ vatican.va] , 30 September-27 October 2001 H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.
In No. 75, a “particular honor” given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.
It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.
With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.
Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.
Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome. Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy. We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.
We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.
Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.
We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
P.S. It is impossible for the Orthodox to discuss "papal" primacy since the concept of "papacy" is something unacknowledged as a valid ministry by the Orthodox Church. But we can discuss what the primacy of Rome was in the first millennium. A student of Church history would never say anything so foolish. The concept of "papacy" is unknown to the Orthodox. It is seen as an aberration in ecclesiology.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Indeed, to conceal this significant fact from the Orthodox would bring into question the credibility and good will of the Catholic theologians and bishops dialoguing with the Orthodox. Or perhaps about the perceptiveness of some of the Orthodox delegation? Actually, I think they are highly perceptive, and see things you do not. But the point is moot, since you show no signs of being receptive to anything the Joint International Theological Commission says or does. Heads you win, tails I lose? Again, I think it really comes down to some Orthodox not merely wanting a substantive resolution of our differences, leading to a reconciliation and establishment of true communion in the Holy Spirit, but of a deep psychological need to score a complete, decisive and highly visible "victory", as if this were a war, or at the least, a sporting event. Nika, Hellas!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Somebody has kept you remarkably ill-informed. I invite you to do an internet search and you will see a number of monographs from acknowledged Orthodox theologians, precisely in response to the Pope's invitation to discuss the Roman primacy. Two of significance (Zizoulis and Clement), neither endorsed by any formal ecclesial group. When it comes to primacy, I am reminded of a story told by Metropolitan Kallistos, of a joing Orthodox-Anglican conference he attended. One of the Anglican delegates asked a question of the Orthodox delegates, who went into a huddle that began to drag on for quite a long while. Though voices were low, there was a lot of emphatic gesticulation going on, while the Anglican delegate waited for an answer to his question. Perplexed, after fifteen minutes or so, he interjected, "May I assume that you do not agree on an answer?" Dead silence from the Orthodox. Finally, the head of the delegation drew himself up straight, stared at the Anglican delegate, and replied, "No, we are in perfect agreement. We merely disagree about that with which we are in agreement". I am reminded of an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself (Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly." At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So, what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
The concept of "papacy" is unknown to the Orthodox. It is seen as an aberration in ecclesiology. Father Ambrose falls back on the time honored tactic of merely repeating himself. Be sure to say it three times, though. Tell me, Father, just what is "normative" Orthodox ecclesiology?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Or perhaps about the perceptiveness of some of the Orthodox delegation? Actually, I think they are highly perceptive, and see things you do not. But the point is moot, since you show no signs of being receptive to anything the Joint International Theological Commission says or does. As you must know, the International Theological Commission has now been effectively derailed by the bishops.  They are insisting that no statements be issued until examined by the Synods of the Local Churches and approved by the bishops. So you see, it is not me who is not "being receptive to anything the Joint International Theological Commission says or does." The bishops themselves are not happy with it ever since Ravenna and now, as is their right, they wish to take control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
The concept of "papacy" is unknown to the Orthodox. It is seen as an aberration in ecclesiology. Father Ambrose falls back on the time honored tactic of merely repeating himself. Be sure to say it three times, though. Repetition is necessary because I can appreciate that learning that the Orthodox have no concept of "papacy" is something a little alien to Catholic ears in the dialogue. It bears repeating a few times so that the shock evaporates and the Orthodox rejection of "papacy" starts to be apprehended.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
First of all, define what you mean by "papacy", because it is pretty clear you have something specific (and probably tendentious) in mind.
Second, once you decide to use an historically valid definition of the term "papacy", you'll be forced to concede what you wrote is historically false.
Third, please tell me what you think "normative" Orthodox ecclesiology is, because there are a lot of Orthodox theologians (to say nothing of Catholic ones) who would really like to know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Again, I think it really comes down to some Orthodox not merely wanting a substantive resolution of our differences, leading to a reconciliation and establishment of true communion in the Holy Spirit, but of a deep psychological need to score a complete, decisive and highly visible "victory", as if this were a war, or at the least, a sporting event. We do indeed have " a deep psychological need to score a complete, decisive and highly visible CREEDAL "victory", as if this were a war, or at the least, a sporting event." It is the orthodox catholic faith which must triumph and win the doctrinal war. There has never been any secret about this Orthodox position. Have a look at the upfront 2000 AD statement on ecumenism issued by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=1318&id=2159&ln=en
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
As you must know, the International Theological Commission has now been effectively derailed by the bishops. As I said, head you win, tails I lose. Maybe there is something of the old Byzantine statecraft at work here. So you see, it is not me who is not "being receptive to anything the Joint International Theological Commission says or does." No, it's you, hiding behind the episcopal sakkos. There are already several pertinent documents in circulation, and you have consistently refused to consider seriously any one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
