|
1 members (Roman),
197
guests, and
65
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,467
Posts417,239
Members6,106
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
Zenovia was writing of what was in the document. She's right that "defective" wrongly carries more weight than the context of the document would allow.
But to that point, this is something upon which the East and West necessarily disagree. Otherwise no distinction would remain to separate the two. It is a broad term which is left unqualified with any hint to what it pertains.
The crux of that part of the sentence is what separates the fundamental nature of Catholicism with "separated churches". I read that passage as declaring that there is a separation significant enough to forbade communion to members of the Orthodox Church and other churches. But the last part of the sentence is far more affirmative, as these churches "are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation."
I don't wish to make any claims to the Orthodox Church's authenticity, but I would like to try and understand what this document is communicating.
Last edited by Terry Bohannon; 07/10/07 06:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I'm not talking about spirituality, I'm talking about the established Church. The Orthodox Church is missing it's main Patriarch. The first among equals. It has to be wounded, and it shows. There is constant friction among the different Orthodox Churches. That is a result of that wound. I don�t recognize the difference you state. The Orthodox Church is fully complete in its structure, because the structure is the Orthodox faith. The geographic dispersion of its bishops is a secondary consideration, and no single bishop defines the structure of the church more than any other. The friction, divisions and bickering within the Orthodox world are certainly a sign of our venal natures; but they are not an indication that the church lacks the fullness of faith or is incomplete in any way. Just as the sacraments brought to us by the church are in any way lessened by the sins or shortcomings of those whose hands they pass through. I also do not believe our problems are a lack of acceptance of the RCC views of the Papacy or any of the other contested issues, nor do I believe that our acceptance of them would be any sort of panacea for our problems. They have their own problems, divisions, bickering, wounds and so on; now and historically speaking, and frankly the Papacy has often been the source of these issues, not the resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560 |
I'm not even going to try to speak about the spirituality or spiritual truths of either the RCC, EC or Orthodox churches. Which is the fullness of Christ? I don't know. But I do know that all of the above mentioned churches are run by humans. And humans, by their very nature, are not perfect. We all make mistakes. We are all sinners.
If Jesus had wanted his church to be perfect, he wouldn't have put humans in charge of it. He would have put angels in charge. Mistakes have been made on both sides. Politics has played a huge part on very important decisions--on both sides. Greed has played a large part--on both sides. Just read history. There have been many Popes who should never have been Popes. There have been many Patriarchs who should never have been Patriarchs. Most religious laws are not in the Gospels. Therefore they came from humans. And boy we sure do make mistakes at times.
We can argue again and again about anything. Even if the Gospels are accurate. St. John Chrystostom had some serious reservations about the Gospel of St. John. How do we know what is right and wrong? Who is right and wrong? Look at iconoclasm. What is considered "Orthodox" today as heresy for a time. Remember Monophysitism? That was fully embraced by some Patriarchs, and rejected by others.
If everyone is right, then no one can be wrong. And we can never embrace the full universality of the church if we can't even talk.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Andrew,
Well said. The papacy is the most significant source of the schism because the patriarchs of Rome decided to exalt themselves as universal patriarchs over the other bishops. Here is one way in which it might be possible to capture the view we are coming from.
Imagine that while there were always problems in the Church, that there was a collegial spirit among the bishops. The Church of Rome was a Church held in great respect and was consulted as to get their opinion on controversies. The voice of Rome was important in the early Church. But, no one thought that the Church of Rome had the kind of primacy that entailed that everyone must submit to her in order to be saved. At some point, the bishops of Rome began asserting themselves more, permitted the unilateral alteration of the Nicene Creed, and eventually saw itself as the Queen and Mother of all of the Churches.
Eastern Christians are prosyletized and told that they must submit to Rome or be in schism. The eastern bishops' response is, 'huh?' Eventually, the schism is complete. For centuries we are in schism. Rome agressively evangelizes Orthodox Christians, sets up churches in union with her, and forces latinizations. Then, one day the Roman Catholic Church has a change of heart, has Vatican II, and begins to refer to the Orthodox as sister Churches and not as schismatics. Rome doesn't understand why we can't be in communion and claims that we have the same faith. Why continue the fighting? Yet, Rome never changes the most fundamental reason for the schism in the first place, namely the Roman Catholic teachings on papal primacy.
This seems to me a plausible view of at least the way an Orthodox Christian might feel when examining Church history in light of being told that there are no real differences so the Orthodox should just come back into the fold. The problem can't be solved by simply having a policy of relative silence on the disputed issues. Either the Pope is the prince of the apostles and the vicar of Christ and ruler over the Church or he is not. He is either set above and over all of the other bishops or he is not. The official documents all say that he is. Various theologians say, "not really." Who is one to believe?
I appreciate the desire for unity and the great steps that Rome and the other patriarchs have taken to achieve unity. I pray for peace, unity, love, and truth to prevail among all of Christ's disciples. But, when Rome says that its view of papal authority is not different than what it has been, I cannot as an Orthodox be in communion with Rome. It is not just a matter of how the Pope exercises his primacy in the Church. It is a disagreement over the very nature of the primacy. For us, the Pope is a Bishop, a very respected Bishop of an important ancient city, but in essence, no more. He has no more authority over the Church than any other individual Bishop. What authority he has is an authority based on respect and deference, just as the patriarchs have. That is my understanding of what it is we believe as Orthodox. The Orthodox Church of Christ is a communion of local Churches, each Church with her own Bishop, teaching the fullness of the Orthodox faith. In each local Church where the Orthodox faith is taught, the whole and entire Catholic Church of Christ is entirely present. Where there is deviation from that Orthodox faith, there is not the fullness of Christ's Church. I accept the view that there are elements of sanctification and grace in those Churches that deviate from Orthodoxy (much the same way that Rome views the Orthodox), but not all Orthodox agree on this. But, there is no defined dogma on what aspects of grace and sanctification exist outside the Orthodox Church, so I think that we are free to have our own theological opinions.
I'm not offended when Catholics say that they are the true Church of Christ in the fullest sense and no other Church is. It is my hope that Catholics will not be offended when we say that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ in the fullest sense and no other Church is.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I'm not talking about spirituality, I'm talking about the established Church. The Orthodox Church is missing it's main Patriarch. The first among equals. It has to be wounded, and it shows. There is constant friction among the different Orthodox Churches. That is a result of that wound. I don�t recognize the difference you state. The Orthodox Church is fully complete in its structure, because the structure is the Orthodox faith. The geographic dispersion of its bishops is a secondary consideration, and no single bishop defines the structure of the church more than any other. The friction, divisions and bickering within the Orthodox world are certainly a sign of our venal natures; but they are not an indication that the church lacks the fullness of faith or is incomplete in any way. Just as the sacraments brought to us by the church are in any way lessened by the sins or shortcomings of those whose hands they pass through. I also do not believe our problems are a lack of acceptance of the RCC views of the Papacy or any of the other contested issues, nor do I believe that our acceptance of them would be any sort of panacea for our problems. They have their own problems, divisions, bickering, wounds and so on; now and historically speaking, and frankly the Papacy has often been the source of these issues, not the resolution. AMM, Great post! I enjoyed reading it. I thought I would let you know about an article written by Fr. Fahey (S.J.) on the synodal nature of the Church. It is quite informative. Click the link below in order to read the article. Eastern Synodal Traditions: Pertinence for Western Collegial Institutions [ woodstock.georgetown.edu] God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7 |
Joe, It seems to me that both Byzantine Orthodox and Romans have both does these deeds you mention. Andrew,
Well said. The papacy is the most significant source of the schism because the patriarchs of Rome decided to exalt themselves as universal patriarchs over the other bishops. Here is one way in which it might be possible to capture the view we are coming from. Perhaps Byzantine imperialism also played some small role in schism, where one Patriarch (or a handful) saw an opportunity to gain the upper hand and attempted to take advantage - by hook.. or crook. Imagine that while there were always problems in the Church, that there was a collegial spirit among the bishops. The Church of Rome was a Church held in great respect and was consulted as to get their opinion on controversies. The voice of Rome was important in the early Church. But, no one thought that the Church of Rome had the kind of primacy that entailed that everyone must submit to her in order to be saved. The primacy mentioned in this document hasn't stated anything outside of honor - not supremacy, not superiority, and not infallibility. Although, it is incorrect to claim that "no one thought", I'm sure some did - most of them Latins and ultramontanists - but they do exist. At some point, the bishops of Rome began asserting themselves more, permitted the unilateral alteration of the Nicene Creed, and eventually saw itself as the Queen and Mother of all of the Churches. The idea of Rome as the Mother of all churches is not mentioned in this document. If it is, the idea itself is erroneous - Rome is the mother of all protestant bodies and in that sense and return of them to Rome would be fine with me. But Rome is not the mother of the Church of Antioch, India, Jerusalem, etc. and I don't think claims to be. Eastern Christians are prosyletized and told that they must submit to Rome or be in schism. The eastern bishops' response is, 'huh?' Eventually, the schism is complete. Though we must not forget this wasn't only Rome, but CONSTANTINOPLE's policy as well. These Imperialist tendencies subjugated the Semitic Churches of the East as well. Why is this always forgotten when Rome's faults are mentioned? For centuries we are in schism. Rome agressively evangelizes Orthodox Christians, sets up churches in union with her, and forces latinizations. As did the Imperial Byzantine Church, although I suppose these should properly be called Byzantinizations. Then, one day the Roman Catholic Church has a change of heart, has Vatican II, and begins to refer to the Orthodox as sister Churches and not as schismatics. Rome doesn't understand why we can't be in communion and claims that we have the same faith. This sounds all too familiar - from BOTH the Western Churches. Why continue the fighting? Yet, Rome never changes the most fundamental reason for the schism in the first place, namely the Roman Catholic teachings on papal primacy. But primacy isn't the reason for the schism - at least from Rome's perspective, and even from some Orthodox. Supremacy and Infallibility were mentioned by some Byzantine Westerners as a reason. Roman Westerners claim primacy was there even prior to schism and the reason for schism was a bullheaded Cardinal (who, from Rome's perspective, had a NON-BINDING excommunication notice) and stubborn Patriarch. This seems to me a plausible view of at least the way an Orthodox Christian might feel when examining Church history in light of being told that there are no real differences so the Orthodox should just come back into the fold. The problem can't be solved by simply having a policy of relative silence on the disputed issues. Either the Pope is the prince of the apostles and the vicar of Christ and ruler over the Church or he is not. Why? Does it make sense to say "either a Bishop is king in his eparchy or he is not" without qualifiers? That would make little sense of the patriarchs, metropolitans, auxiliaries, corbishops, etc. He is either set above and over all of the other bishops or he is not. The official documents all say that he is. Various theologians say, "not really." Who is one to believe? Both. Aren't Byzantines supposed to enjoy paradoxes? Why can't this be just another one to live with? I appreciate the desire for unity and the great steps that Rome and the other patriarchs have taken to achieve unity. I pray for peace, unity, love, and truth to prevail among all of Christ's disciples. But, when Rome says that its view of papal authority is not different than what it has been, I cannot as an Orthodox be in communion with Rome. Where in this document did Rome say that? It is not just a matter of how the Pope exercises his primacy in the Church. It is a disagreement over the very nature of the primacy. For us, the Pope is a Bishop, a very respected Bishop of an important ancient city, but in essence, no more. He has no more authority over the Church than any other individual Bishop. When is a bishop not just a bishop - when he is head of a Synod. How else can a Synod of equals with one as head oust another equal? So can it be that a bishop can exercise a little, tiny bit more authority that his equals when they allow him to exercise that authority with their consent? What authority he has is an authority based on respect and deference, just as the patriarchs have. That is my understanding of what it is we believe as Orthodox. The Orthodox Church of Christ is a communion of local Churches, each Church with her own Bishop, teaching the fullness of the Orthodox faith. In each local Church where the Orthodox faith is taught, the whole and entire Catholic Church of Christ is entirely present. It may be Spiritually, Sacramentally, and supernaturally but not entirely-in-time-and-space. Where there is deviation from that Orthodox faith, there is not the fullness of Christ's Church. I accept the view that there are elements of sanctification and grace in those Churches that deviate from Orthodoxy (much the same way that Rome views the Orthodox), but not all Orthodox agree on this. But, there is no defined dogma on what aspects of grace and sanctification exist outside the Orthodox Church, so I think that we are free to have our own theological opinions.
I'm not offended when Catholics say that they are the true Church of Christ in the fullest sense and no other Church is. It is my hope that Catholics will not be offended when we say that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ in the fullest sense and no other Church is. I for one, am not offended in the least.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
I'm not even going to try to speak about the spirituality or spiritual truths of either the RCC, EC or Orthodox churches. Which is the fullness of Christ? I don't know. But I do know that all of the above mentioned churches are run by humans. And humans, by their very nature, are not perfect. We all make mistakes. We are all sinners.
If Jesus had wanted his church to be perfect, he wouldn't have put humans in charge of it. He would have put angels in charge. Mistakes have been made on both sides. Politics has played a huge part on very important decisions--on both sides. Greed has played a large part--on both sides. Just read history. There have been many Popes who should never have been Popes. There have been many Patriarchs who should never have been Patriarchs. Most religious laws are not in the Gospels. Therefore they came from humans. And boy we sure do make mistakes at times.
We can argue again and again about anything. Even if the Gospels are accurate. St. John Chrystostom had some serious reservations about the Gospel of St. John. How do we know what is right and wrong? Who is right and wrong? Look at iconoclasm. What is considered "Orthodox" today as heresy for a time. Remember Monophysitism? That was fully embraced by some Patriarchs, and rejected by others.
If everyone is right, then no one can be wrong. And we can never embrace the full universality of the church if we can't even talk. Dear Tim, Exceptional post! I would like to add the following writings on Christianity and the Church by Saint Nektarios: http://www.serfes.org/writtings/stnectarios.htm Writtings Of
Saint Nectarios
Of Aegina
Compiled by Father Demetrios Serfes
CHRISTIANITY
Christian religion is not a certain philosophic system, about which learned men, trained in metaphysical studies, argue and then either espouse or reject, according to the opinion each one has formed. It is faith, established in the souls of men, which ought to be spread to the many and be maintained in their consciousnesses.
There are truths in Christianity that are above out intellectual comprehension, incapable of being grasped by the finite mind of man. Our intellect takes cognizance of them, becomes convinced of their reality, and testifies about their supernatural existence.
Christianity is a religion of revelation. The Divine reveals its glory only to those who have been perfected through virtue. Christianity teaches perfection through virtue and demands that its followers become holy and perfect. It disapproves of and opposes those who are under the influence of the imagination.
He who is truly perfect in virtue becomes through Divine help outside the flesh and the world, and truly enters another, spiritual world; not, however, through the imagination, but through the effulgence of Divine grace. Without grace, without revelation, no man, even the most virtuous, can transcend the flesh and the world.
God reveals Himself to the humble, who live in accordance with virtue. Those who take up the wings of the imgination attempt the flight of Ikaros and have same end. Those who harbor fantasies do not pray; for he that prays lifts his mind and heart towrds God, whereas he that turns to fantasies diverts himself.
Those who are addicted to the imagination have withdrawn from God's grace and from the realm of Divine revelation. They have abandoned the heart in which grace is revealed and have surrendered themselves to the imagination, which is devoid of all grace. It is only the heart that receives knowledge about things that are not apprehended by the senses, because God, Who dwells and moves within it, speaks within it and reveals to it the substance of things hoped for.
SEEK GOD daily. But seek Him in your heart, not outside it. And when you find Him, stand with fear and trembling, like the Cherubim and the Seraphim, for your heart has become a throne of God. But in order to find God, become humble as dust before the Lord, for the Lord abhors the proud, whereas He visits those that are humble in heart, wherefor He says: "To whom will I look, but to him that is meek and humble in heart?"
THE DIVINE LIGHT illumines the pure heart and the pure intellect, because these are susceptible to receiving light; whereas impure hearts and intellects, not being susceptible to receiving illumination, have an aversion to the light of knowledge, the light of truth; they like darkness... God loves those who have a pure heart, listens to their prayers, grants them their requests that lead to salvation, reveals Himself to them and teaches the mysteries of the Divine nature.
THE CHURCH
The term CHURCH, according to the strict Orthodox view, has two meanings, one of them expressing its doctrinal and religious character, that is, its inner, peculiarly spiritual essence, and the other expressing its external character. Thus, according to the Orthodox confession, the Church is defined in a twofold manner: as a religious institution, and as a religious community (koinonia).
The definition of the CHURCH as a religious institution may be formulated thus: The Church is a divine religious institution of the New Testament, built by our Savior Jesus Christ through His incarnate Dispensation, established upon faith on the day of holy Pentecost by the descent of the All-Holy Spirit upon the holy Disciples and Apostles of the Savior Christ, whom He rendered instruments of Divine grace for the perpetuation of His work of redemption.
In this institution is entrusted the totality of revealed truths; in it operates Divine grace through the Mysteries; in it are regenerated those, who with faith, approach Christ the Savior; in it has been preserved both the written and the unwritten Apostolic teaching and tradition.
The definition of the CHURCH as a religious community may be formulated thus: The CHURCH is a society of men united in the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace.
The right view of the CHURCH is that the CHURCH is distinguished into the Militant and the Triumphant; and that it is Militant so long as it struggles against wickedness for the prevalence of the good, the Triumphant in the heavens, where there dwells the choir of the Righteous, who struggled and were made perfect in the faith in God and in virtue. I love saints...not too fond though of theologians. A theologian speaks of God, but a saint, aha!  He has an experience of God. Big difference! I believe Bishop Kallistos Ware is a saint. God Bless, Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580 |
Thanks Tim & Zenovia for your wisom. God bless you both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 47
Rdr. Innocent Member
|
|
Rdr. Innocent Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 47 |
As a former RC who moved on into Holy Orthodoxy I understandable disagree with the document in question.
However I appreciate this document very much because after a long time of muddled statements where noone knew what it actually means this is the first that is crystal clear and I guess a true roman catholic statement of doctrine.
Here is the problem for me: if I want to sit down with a roman catholic faithful and discuss our differences but the roman catholic doesn't really know anymore what the true (roman catholic) faith is - it makes a discussion absolutly frustrating and there is not much to talk about.
But now that there is a clear statement we have something to talk about and then can outline why we come to the difference stands. and then maybe with the help of the Holy Spirit come to an agreement or part in piece acknowledging our differences.
With everything what happened in the last couple weeks maybe the RC is getting back to her roots and then we can start talking again. I wish there is more of the clear statements to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951 Likes: 1 |
Is true that in a recent document the Pope Benedict XVI stated that the only and true Church of Christ is the Romano-Catholic Church, and that the Orthodox Church is a particular one?
I'd appreciate a direct link to the original document.
How will affect this the strives for unity?
M+
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706 |
Wondering,
I don't, um, wonder anymore. After a few hours away (to avoid an imminent snark attack) I think Pope Benedict XVI means well but has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth with extraordinarily offensive remarks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7 |
I don't believe the Pope sticks his foot in his mouth at all - the media spins until they catch some group who believes them without reading the actual document.
All soundbyte and no substance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Is true that in a recent document the Pope Benedict XVI stated that the only and true Church of Christ is the Romano-Catholic Church, and that the Orthodox Church is a particular one? Yes. The document was issued by a Vatican organization, but the pope approved of the document before it was released. The document said that the Catholic Church "subsists in" (is) the Church in communion with the bishop of Rome. The document said, therefore, that the Orthodox Church consists of "particular churches" that "lack something in their condition." In other words, the Orthodox are almost the fullness of the Church, but not quite, because they aren't in communion with the pope. Also, the document said that the Protestant Churches are not considered churches. That is because they don't have the Eucharist because they don't have valid apostolic succession. Instead, they are regarded as "Christian communities." The document can be found on the Vatican's website. "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" of 29 June 2007. In English, the document is at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html A good explanation of it can be found at the Catholic News Service's website. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703923.htmThe summary is this: "In a brief document, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated churches and communities."How will affect this the strives for unity? Good question. First, it makes very clear the position of the Roman Church. The Roman Church is going to adhere to its tradition. This includes the belief that the Roman Church is the fullness of the Church. It also includes the belief that all other Christians are not fully the Church. Second, there is the reaction of other Christians to the pope's view of them. Probably the reaction will be a range of responses, from outrage (on the one hand) to rolling of the eyes and wondering what else is new (on the other hand). Basically, I think this pope (Benedict) is trying to restore tradition and discipline to the Roman Catholic Church, in order to have a purer church of committed believers, by weeding out the dissenters and eliminating doctrinal confusion. I think he is willing to do that even if some statements offend outsiders. To that extent, the current pope is worth a measure of respect. He is trying to do what he believes is necessary in order to save his church. And, thereby, the rest of us know exactly where we stand with him and his church . . . which leaves us two questions: Shall this become another time of religious enmity and competition between the Churches? Or, shall this become a time of "good fences make good neighbors" ? Time and our responses will tell. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Is true that in a recent document the Pope Benedict XVI stated that the only and true Church of Christ is the Romano-Catholic Church, and that the Orthodox Church is a particular one?
I'd appreciate a direct link to the original document.
How will affect this the strives for unity?
M+ Marian, I'm not sure what you mean by "recent", but under the signature of Cardinal Ratzinger the CDF issued a document in 1992 which deals in more depth with the basic questions of the document under discussion here: Communionis Notio [ vatican.va] And a more recent document by same here: Dominus Iesus [ vatican.va] HTH, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
John,
Please do not fall into the same habit as the media and many other people! This document elucidates the view of the Catholic Church, of which the Roman Catholic Church is only a part. Nowhere does it say that the only true Church is the Roman Catholic Church. Read the original - you will not see the word Roman.
____
Lege atque lacrima.
|
|
|
|
|
