www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Fr. Hopko presentation

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

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

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.

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!

I agree.

Gordo,

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


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

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

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

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.