|
Forums26
Topics35,509
Posts417,513
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by ebed melech: Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
[b] In other words, on dogmatic matters, to comply with the wishes of Fr. Hopko, the Pope will have to become a heretic!
Gordo [/b]Not a problem. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to post that clarification. BTW, there are some Orthodox groups (mostly splinter groups) who accuse us of heresy. Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
BTW, there are some Orthodox groups (mostly splinter groups) who accuse us of heresy.
Dn. Robert I know! That is one of the reasons why I appreciate the writings of Metropolitan John Zizoulas so much. His thought is so innovative and yet so faithful, and he has really been responsible, IMHO, for taking the dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism to a much higher level. It is a rare moment in history, with Ratzinger on the papal throne and Zizoulas in his role within the EP. You think it is the Holy Spirit at work? I do!  Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Originally posted by nicholas: Originally posted by ebed melech:
[b] One cannot simply replicate the 1st millennium First of all there are no more Christian Empires. There are no more Emperors sitting on thrones in Istanbul- I mean Constantinople, or in Aachen or Vienna or Moscow (well we really don't know what Putin is up to these days! :p ) So the idea of replicating a dead system of government in which a monarch rules over all and protects the Church (sometimes) is pretty much pointless. (Although I am a monarchist at heart, there is no more Roman Empire; no more Constantines, Justinians, Henrys, Ottos, Nicholases, Karls, etc...) The other thing is that we all romanticize the first millenium as a wonderful magical time of unity, and it wasn't. Different bishops and priests went in and out of communion all the time, otherwise why have an Ecumenical Council? Finally, Islam pretty much wiped out a large chunk of Christendom during the first millenium. Remember that the whole of the Middle East and Northern Africa were Christian at one time. We live in the Third Millenium, let's not mire ourselves in the past but look to the future and pray for reunion on God's terms and not man's. May we not get in His way and subvert His will for Unity. May they all be one... OK, I'll get off of my soap box for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Originally posted by ebed melech: Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
[b] BTW, there are some Orthodox groups (mostly splinter groups) who accuse us of heresy.
Dn. Robert
It is a rare moment in history, with Ratzinger on the papal throne and Zizoulas in his role within the EP. You think it is the Holy Spirit at work? I do!
Gordo [/b]I have read a few online articles by Metropolitan John, and I have to say that his positions do not seem any different than what most Catholics would believe except for a few Ultramontantists. I also like creating new acronyms: IALCNA and TBFIGPMGCP!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Fr. Deacon Robert,
How can one be desribed as a heretic who holds to the teachings of the Seven Great Councils as so many saints did?
The problem with the later Western Councils is they hold the Latin position to be the only acceptable position and then proclaim it the Apostolic position. All this without the participation and/or acceptance of these councils by the East, token representation by Eastern Catholics not withstanding.
Many of the Western Councils dealt with disciplinary matter pertaining only to the West or to theological controversy again only pertaining to the West. It would be like
the Orthodox Church proclaiming their own particular councils after the Great Seven to be Ecumencical and binding on all other Churches. (And some extremists do!)
As Catholics we may have to agree that the later Councils were not heresy, but I do not feel we have to give them the same weight or honor we do the Great Seven. Indeed, we do not liturgically celebrate any but the Great Seven, which says quite a lot.
Fr. Deacon Lance I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
Gordo, Originally posted by ebed melech:
[QB] I think that this is a fair distinction. As a Catholic, I have always regarded Patriarchal/Papal encyclicals and synods as carrying weight as a primary source of magisterium. I have never heard the Orthodox position articulated in such a way which says that they are relegated to a position of being a "secondary source". I'll have to mentally chew on that one for a while. It is a perspective I did not consider. Yes, that is a distinct difference when you're detirmining the "sources" of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. A very common school of Catholic dogmatic theology (I hope I got the right field) considers every papal encylcical or curial document with teaching authority as a part of the binding magisterium (I'm not wholly comfortable with this school, not because I think the documents are bad or unworthy of magisterial respect- in fact, most of them are excellent- but because I think it goes a bit too far). This is not at all the case in Orthodoxy. The prime sources of faith are the Bible, the Liturgy, the Ecumenical councils, the Church fathrers, &c, and later encylicals - though containing official positions and useful for teaching and apologetics- are taken with less than "magisterial" authority But perhaps there is something prophetic in [the Zogbhy initiative] as well...It is somewhat analogous to a negotation strategy, where two parties have staked out positions that appear to be contradictory, so they must go deeper into the underlying "interests and needs" to discover some inner complimentarity and come to some type of agreement. I actually do admire the Orthodoxy of the Melkites. As a patriarchal see, they have the ability to push the proverbial envelope. I agree on your negotiation strategy analogy. And yes I do attend Holy Transfiguration. Father Ephrem is great, and Father Joseph is continuing his excellent leadership of the parish. We get a steady stream of adult "converts". Within a few years I think we'll have five deacons. I also think that there are some younger men who may be called to assume leadership positions in the parish - including one who I think would make an oustanding pastor. Markos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 351 |
Dear Friends, Here's an edited version of Fr. Hopko's recent talk given at the Youngstown-Warren Ohio chapter meeting of the Society of St. John Chrysostom. The topic was what the Orthodox would have to do to be in communion with Rome. This appeared in the Catholic Exponent as part of a feature spread on Orthodoxy. http://www.doy.org/viewpast.asp?ID=2027 Vito
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27 |
Thanks Vito!
Much food for thought for all!
I'll share this with the Western Region of the Society of St John Chrysostom. Is an unedited version available?
Thanks again!
Betty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Originally posted by Vito: Dear Friends,
Here's an edited version of Fr. Hopko's recent talk given at the Youngstown-Warren Ohio chapter meeting of the Society of St. John Chrysostom. The topic was what the Orthodox would have to do to be in communion with Rome. This appeared in the Catholic Exponent as part of a feature spread on Orthodoxy. http://www.doy.org/viewpast.asp?ID=2027
Vito I like the fact that Fr. Hopko emphasizes distinguishing between essentials and non-essentials. He even says that we can have full communion and still disagree on some things. I thinks it unfortunate, however, that here he limits himself to differences of opinion on "What's the best way to do things?" questions. (E.g., whether a celibacy rule for priests, communion in one kind, etc. are good ideas.) Thus, he stops short of saying that there are some strictly factual matters for which those who are correct can be in full communion with those who are incorrect. We Catholics have a fairly nice historic example/precedent for this: I'm referring to the reconciliation that occurred after the "Great Western Schism" (or whatever you want to call it) -- the period (about 50 years?) in which there 2 or 3 "popes" at the same time. How did this reconciliation happen? All of the three "popes" agreed to step down and accept the result of a new election. But the relevant point for this discussion is that this new election only ensured agreement on who was the current pope, not on the historical list of popes. That is to say, for some years (I couldn't really say how many) after the reconciliation, different Catholics continued to have different ideas about who had been the pope during the schism. There simply was no need for agreement on this point in order to have full communion. Now while the question "Who was pope in the year _____ ?" is not much of a burning issue among Catholics or between Catholics and Orthodox, there are certainly some historical questions which are -- i.e. which councils were ecumenical, which papal statement were ex cathedra, what dogmas have been defined -- and I feel certain that, even if/when full communion does take place, we will all continue to have different answers to these 3 questions. God bless, Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
