www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Byzantine Catholic Deacon to appear on the History Channel

I have to disagree with my brother in the faith, Brendan. Yes, real issues seperate Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Giving up on ecumencial dialogue, cooperation, or hope is not what we are about. We are part of the ecumencial movement for the long haul. Those who think either corporate reunion is two steps away or this whole movement is not worth the effort, are severely lacking.

We Orthodox enter a ecumencial dialogue and joint action that we do not yet understand where it will lead us. We do not only with you Catholics but with our fellow members of the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches.

This is not something for the faint-hearted or sunshine warriors.

We don't know where we are going, but let us begin!

Axios

[ 04-01-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

I still havent noticed anybody answering my question on Mathew 16 and the Petrine keys, at least from an Orthodox perspective.

It isnt hard for me to understand why Catholics feel the Petrine ministry is an important part of their religion and faith. Regardless of anything, the unity that that office gives to that Church is as valuable a reason as any. We all have to go by some sort of "chain of command" if good order is to be pursued in governing almost anything. After all, looking at things from an American perspective, dosnt it make more sense for us to have a President who governs the nation in coordination with the other legislative bodies, but yet, during an emergancy, has the power to clain executive authority and proclaim martial law. Imagine the chaos that we would have if the country were runby the governers of the 50 states all co ordinating with eachother trying to get things done. So, for me anyway, using that example and just plain common sense logic, yes the Papacy does make sense from both a Catholic and universla Church perspective.

But the facts should be made clear that while Rome did enjoy a primacy of honor in the first millinium, she did not interfer, or have the right to, in the governance of the Eastern Churches. The schism basically was over territory with some theological concerns thrown in. This is because the Greek east and the Latin west didnt speak the same language and worked under diffeent principles. To which of those principles we follow is a matter of our own interpretation and belief.
Robert K.

I would like to alos point out on a final note that while historians may point to 1054 as the main dte of the break between east and west, the schism still took centuries more to finalize. A clear example of this can be seen in the fact that the Russian and Ukrainian Churches inserted the feast of the translation of the relics of St. Nicholas from Myra to Bari, Italy in their calendars. This event occured, I believe around the turn of the 11th century. THe liturgical text even, as I can remember, speak praisworthy of the Pope and the Church of Rome. Greeks however never put the feast in their calendar and to this day preffer to think of these relics as having been "stolen" by Latins.

Also one could point out the numerous councils for reunion which took place between the two Churches especially the one held in Bari in 1096 and the (ow humiliating for the Orthodox) second Council of Lyons in 1274 in which reunion was actually achieved for a brief period of time, and this was after the 1204 sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders!

Robert K.

Axios --

Who is talking about exiting the dialogue? All I said was that the ideas of that specific book can never, ever, be the basis for unity.

Brendan

Non-Catholic interpretation of MT 16:
The "rock" of the church is not the person of Peter but the faith of Peter ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" - v.16).
This faith was replicated by any and all who came to that same belief. The Church is grounded in faith in Christ, not in anyone's personal authority.
About the keys in v.19 -- Jesus is prophesying Peter's key role in opening the doors of the Church to converts thus bringing them to salvation, a prophecy born out in the Book of Acts. Of course, Acts testifies that he was not the only successful evangelizer. Also, the power of the keys is in part constituted by as the authority to bind and loose that is described in that very same verse 19. This exact same power is bestowed on the other apostles in Mt.18:18.

Conclusion: Peter has primacy of honor (personal bestowal vs. group bestowal of power) but not of jurisdiction over the other apostles and their bishop-successors, as per the age-old Orthodox contention.

OrthodoxyOrDeath,

You ask what we need a council for. My answer is a quotation:

"that they all may be one."

Schism is sinful and it needs to be healed.

You wrote:

I do not need my brothers to be saved. I love my brothers and I pray they will join the Church, I will talk to them, but I choose to separate myself from all who do not follow Christ and his Church.

I gotta tell you, this is one of the scariest things I've ever read on this forum. I trust you didn't really mean this the way it sounds, but it sounds really scary. Salvation is both individual and corporate. Can you really defend this statement or attitude from an Orthodox perspective?

DL

I do not need my brothers to be saved. I love my brothers and I pray they will join the Church, I will talk to them, but I choose to separate myself from all who do not follow Christ and his Church.

[ 04-01-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ][/QB][/QUOTE]


Yea that does sound really disturbing from both a Catholic and Orthodox perspective.

Indeed very much like something that you would hear come out of the mouth of one of those evangelical fundementalist and certainly not an Orthodox Christian.

Im probably suspecting that OOD is a member of one of those Old Calendarist Orthodox Synods in "Resistance". These unfortunate and misguided souls have in their pathetic attempts to "save" the Church from "destruction" (AS if the Church can be destroyed) Have basically become strongly sectarian in their outlook.

Robert K.

Dear Friends,

I must agree with Brendan on this one.

Without denying the role of the Petrine Ministry in the Church, Catholics should be considering how the Papacy can become transfigured into a Servant to ALL the Churches, East and West.

This is entirely in keeping with the wishes of Pope John Paul II as well.

While I certainly don't have a problem with the Papacy as it is (then again, I am a monarchist!), the Pope himself has put the question to the East as to how the Papacy should transform itself.

We can and should contribute to this important debate.

We should do nothing to "turn back the clock" which this presentation certainly appears to do.

Alex

Alex,

What you say makes sense to me.

Has a discussion about a workable form of service ministry of the Pope among the Churches begun on a hierarchical level between East and West?

Welcome back. Hope that you enjoyed Florida!

Steve

Dear Steve,

Happy Easter!

Yes, your Sunshine State is truly warm and beautiful!

I also understand that "Florida" is a reference to the Spanish name for Easter, "Pasqua Florida" since your State was discovered on Easter by Ponce de Leon.

Is April 2 "Pasqua Day" in Florida? Is it a day off?

EWTN's news site has an article that quotes a Greek Orthodox representative saying that the discussions with the RC's are going well.

God bless,

Alex

Yes, John Paul has called for discussions on the role of the papacy.

I'm not sure how affirming that there is a Petrine ministry in the Church (which includes following the traditional Catholic understandings of such Scripture passages as Matthew 16:18ff) "turns back the clock."

As for myself, I was an ardent supporter of the Zoghby Initiative and I was extremely disappointed when Rome came down against it. The upshot was that I left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy. I accepted without question the reading of Church history (such as Abbe Guettee) which placed Roman claims as very late. It was quite a revelation for me to read Fr John Meyendorff on Pope St Leo and to see the claims of Petrine primacy in St Leo's writings.

To state that one cannot be "Orthodox" and have a high view of the papacy is unhistoric. The first schism between East and West was solved on terms extremely favorable to Rome: "The Formula of Hormisdas." See:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/hormisdas.html

I have no doubt that modern Orthodoxy would never sign such an agreement today. That does not mean that the Eastern Fathers who did back then (and on later occasions as well) were not "Orthodox."

Ecumenical relations between Catholic and Orthodox requires "frank dialogue" (to quote John Paul). Soft-pedaling truths of the Catholic faith is not helpful in such dialogue.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/index.html