www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things the West can do right away

And why discriminate against the Catholics on Jupiter?? Are the Plutonian Catholics �not good enough� for us??


(hehe)

A sane voice.

-ray

For further clarification, re: The (earlier) Council of 869-70 and its revocation by the Council of 879-80.


For this, please read the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Vol. 1, under the entry, "Constantinople, Councils Of" > "Council of 869-70", where it says the following (on p. 513, second paragraph):


"Following the restoration of Photios, the decisions of 869-70 were annulled at the Council of Constantinople 879-80 (see below). The council of 869-70 was therefore omitted from the list of ecumenical councils recognized by the Latin church, until the second half of the 11th C. After the dispute with MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS, the West began to include it among the ecumenical councils. This interpretation was due (as Dvornik conclusively demonstrated) to Western canonists, who thought the council had not been annulled in 879." [...] "-A.P."


See Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium for source and lit. from: Mansi, Dvornik, D. Stiernon and H.H. Schoffler.

How about outlining this proof.

Dear RomanRedneck:

Do not waste your time in contacting any hierarchy in either church on these matters. They are not motivated, as we are, to any unity between the two churches. If anything - they are motivated to keep things just as they are and not risk to dilute their own positions and authority and reputation. Very few hierarchy will risk straying from �accepted standard� views. They may change their tune in private - but certainly they will not stray from 'approved answers' in public.

Believe me... if they wanted unity it would have been worked out and accomplished already.

Can you imagine how many bishops would lose their positions, their authority, their prestige and special clothing and crowd admiration ? if real eclesiastical unity came about??

How many overlapping bishops are there in any region?? two - three - four - five? Greek Orthodox, Melkite, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, what have you and what have you - if full unity came to the entire church - which of these would step down to accommodate real and full ecclesiastical organization that unity supposes?? In the early centuries of the church they actually use to imprison each other - or send armed troops to capture each other - or incite riots against each other - and these were bishops in the same church!! That was one reason why Councils became necessary. If your read the early Councils very few items are actually about revealed theology and the overwhelming number of cannons are regarding how they themselves should act and be organized (how the human side of the church should operate as an organization). They were ripping each other apart and that had to stop or there would be no church.

A relative of mine (Greek Orthodox) returned from a funeral of an important Orthodox bishop - and in attendence were several bishops of several Orthodox churches plus Roman Catholic bishops. Dignitaries all. As they all lined up at the grave side - it reminded him of a line up of clowns - each hoping that they had the most impressive clothing and signs of office. Each must have carriied an extra 30 to 40 punds of decorative clothing, gold, silver and jewels - hats of all sizes, shapes and colors. Shall the tallest hat win?

Fallible humans in need of santification - entrusted with infallible things - what the heck was Our Lord thinking!!??

There are some bishops who do have personal holiness. But you and I must act like that all do.

Unity begins here - with us. With such good hearts as Alex, still small voice, Pani Rose, JThur, Deacon John, Tony, Memo... etc.. etc.. etc.. and of course yourself

-ray

If I hadn't just written five papers this week and weren't in the middle of trying desperately to finish the rest of my work by Friday I would. But the book is worth the read and I suggest everyone get it via interlibrary loan and read it.

anastasios

How can one Ecumenical Council be "annulled" by another?

The Council of 869 was recognized as Ecumenical by the entire Church. It was ratified by all the Eastern Patriarchs as such, as well as by the Pope of Rome.

How can another council, held ten years later in the same city, "annul" it?

This is a grave question.

I was mocked on the previous page for reading the Catholic Encyclopedia online (even though I had not listed it as one of my sources). It is interesting that Mr. Redneck would then quote the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.

That article in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium was obviously done by an adherent of Dvornik. I have not yet read Dvornik's book, but I have been around historiography long enough to know that it is not the first or last word on the matter.

Also, I always have a healthy suspicion of scholars who claim to "conclusively demonstrate" something.

For example, when I was doing my undergraduate Thesis on Chartres, I read an extremely popular scholarly work, published first by U Chi and then by Princeton University Press, that claimed to "demonstrate" that the stained glass windows were "forced" donations from an oppressed populace. The book sported a substantial apparatus. However, the arguments turned out to be vacuous and rooted in ideology.

So, it'll take more than name dropping and little jabs to convince me that there was no second split between Rome and Photios, and that an Ecumenical Council can be "annulled".

I will read Dvornik when I get a chance, but the weight of evidence that I have seen is that Rome rejected the 879 Council right away.

In Christ,

an unconvinced LT

Hi,

No, the West would not require the East to do this. In fact, we have full communion with Byzantine Catholic Church that do not and should not insert the Filioque or any attempt of translation into the Creed.

It would suffice for the East to accept the "general" nature of these Councils, even if they do not rank them together with the (first) 7 Ecumenical. The East also needs to accept the dogmatic content of these Councils, even if expressed with formulas different than, but equivalent to the ones used by the Councils themselves.

This is a direct consequence of 2), as Vatican I is one of the General Councils the East would need to accept. Of course, we would need to be 110% sure we ALL have the same understanding of exactly what this God-given authority is, and how is it used by the Pope.

But it all boils down to this, doesn't it?


How is this not helping? How else do you think Unity is possible, from the Catholic point of view?

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi Memo.

You miss my point. My point had nothing to do with those issues specifically. Of course I do not want to force the East to say the Filioque.

My point was that you can't start a discussion by telling the other side that they can just conform "right away" to your view of things.

LT

Hi,

No, I see your point, and disagree with it.

The list of things the West can do right away is a good starting point for dialogue.

If those engaged in Ecumenical dialogue do not know where they want to go, how can the rest of the Church expect any meaningful results from such a dialogue?

Maybe during the course of the dialogue itself, both sides see the need to revise or clarify their goals, but they need to have the goals clear at any given time, or else you are in risk to become the proverbial Orthodox delegate to the World Council of Churches who allegedly declared that the Orthodox delegation was in heated argument because, although they were unaninous in their position, they were still figuring out what that position actually was.

Back to the specific issue. Is the Catholic Church willing to establish full communion with a Church that doesn't accept the authority of the Pope as dogmatically defined by Vatican I?

No.

Is any Orthodox Church willing to accept Vatican I's dogmatic definition about the authority of the Pope?

No.

Then why bother with attempts at full communion right now? It is very clear that this is not happening, at least not as a result of theological dialogue between representatives of the Churches.

The schism started with the hierarcy and permeated down to the people. The healing of this schism is likely to happen the other way around. As it has been said in this thread already, full unity between our Churches will start with us: regular average Joes and regular average Seraphims, who share what being a Christian means for each one of us and for our communities.

This form of communion may lead us to the next level, as we realize that "we" may not be the only ones who are right, and "they" are not all that wrong after all.

From there, we can then realize that "we" and "they" are perhaps not the very best choices for pronowns, and before we know it, BAM, it is "Us" again.

And then our hierarchs will have no obstacle in formalizing the union, in fact, they will have no choice but to.

Full unity will not happen during a mythical Re-union Council. It will happen when brothers and sisters learn to live together in peace.

Shalom,
Memo.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Memo,

I agree with every point you made on that last post.

Michael

Christ is risen!! Indeed He is risen!!!

Brothers and sisters:

I've followed this thread with interest. I wonder if the assumption is that Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox, are "the East"? I've brought to this thinking the idea of the Oriental Orthodox who consider us all "the West." I wonder what they think that the Byzantines with the Latins should do to foster the unity of Christians.

Memo posts "Fallible humans in need of santification - entrusted with infallible things - what the heck was Our Lord thinking!!??"

My take?! He knew that we would grind against each other and either bring out the best in each other or wreck each other in the process. He also knew that only the wounded would turn to Him for help and perhaps allows us to wound each other so that He can continue to bind up those wounds. After all, we are most human when we need others and He brings out our most human element when we turn to Him for help and healing.

And after reading Memo's full post, I felt it necessary to add that the editor of our diocesan newspaper said the same things about ecumenism beginning with the lay people twenty-five years ago. He was at the same time a seminary professor and a very good preacher. He said that the lay people were already knocking down the barriers by communing in other churches than their own, by marrying others not of their own church, and demanding that clergy accept much of what their particular churches might not officially approve of. He also predicted that such a coming together would come as we educated ourselves about each other and came to know, to work with, and to love one another. Never a popular position with the hierarchy.

Another thought crossed my mind as I continued to read. With the broad diversity of opinion within any one Church--or any one parish for that matter--how would we obtain and keep a bishop without a schism about every other month? Could you see a very liberal place putting up with a strict bishop--say one who insisted that each tradition strictly adhere to its own traditions? Perhaps followed by a successor who didn't care what went on anywhere? I have dreamed of having a ROCOR bishop placed over some of the liberals I know and laugh so hard I get tears in my eyes. Then I think of those who are very strict in their observances of what they have been taught and who take their faith and its practice very seriously and wonder what they would do and how they would react to the man who didn't give a rip. Or how anyone in the Apostolic Churches would react to a woman or gay bishop. I admit to being absolutely opposed to both these types of bishop, but know people who are equally convinced that it should be allowed to happen.

I, too, believe that the thrust for unity will come from the bottom up. When we begin to learn to appreciate each other's traditions and even to participate in them as far as we are able, unity will come from the Holy Spirit moving like a tidal wave through all the barriers that we have erected over the centuries. He seems to be whispering to many of us this very thing and it seems to be coming out of so many quarters tht it can only be Him at work. I leave you with one example of such participation. Some years ago I was assigned by my employer to drive a limo for an Orthodox bishop during the festivities surrounding his 40th anniversary of priestly ordination. I arrived at his residence and was to be introduced to His Grace after the clergy had formally greeted him. Well, old bold Bob just got at the end of the line of clergy and greeted him in the same fashion as the clergy--bow, kiss hand and right knee--but looked him in the eye while still having a firm grip on his hand and said in English, rather than Greek, "may God grant you, to us, for many years, most holy master." Everyones jaw dropped. I was asked why I would do this and I replied without hesitation that I had learned to greet an Orthodox bishop that way while an undergraduate. I also told the bishop that as far as I was concerned that that is the way he should be greeted since he was no less an Apostle in my eyes than my own bishop. Needless to say a lot of barriers came down in that five minute period. My advice is to just go out and boldly do it. Observe how others act in their home (churches) and follow their lead. It does not detract from my faith or my commitment to make different gestures when worshipping the same Jesus Christ Who we all call Master. Sometimes one will not be welcome at the Chalice. But one should not embarrass the priest either. One should introduce oneself as a guest and ask what one may do to participate in the life of the parish church at that time. And one should be a good guest and not pretend to criticize one's hosts, though in reality they are brothers and sisters in Christ. We've got to see each other as cousins, if you will, that have been separated for a long time but have so much to catch up on and so much to learn from each other.

OK, now everyone can let me have it.

BOB

Hi Folks,

First off, I am very glad to be here. Pani Rose suggested I sign up for the forum. So far it looks very interesting and Im looking forward to learning from ya'll.

Secondly, the opinions expressed in my three posts, are NOT my opinions. They are simply quotes from a life long friend who happens to be an Orthodox Monk.

Sadly im on a bunch of meds that tend to dumb me down lol. At one time I would have been able to keep up with the best of you. Now, ha! So I ask your indulgence.

Yours,

Jason B.

My 'letting you have it" would consist of tears of joy. What you describe is how I try to act within the local Orthodox church (I am RC) and I am a familiar face at Liturgy - often assit with chores - kiss the cross at the closing - and the priest is probably my best friend for talking over spiritual matters. I am trusted and appreciated and part of the family. Perhaps I am the bone head of the family .

If my funeral was tomorrow - there would be a Catholic priest and an Orthodox priest at my grave side (you are all invited too )

-ray

Welcome Jason - you will find a good mix of people in here and very thoughtful discussion. Each of us has our bad days (mine are M,T,W,T,F,S, and often Sundays too - if you want one of these days just let me know) but we all recover.

Welcome.
-ray