www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West New Curial Document on Nature of the Church

FYI, here is an article that gives a little more detail on the Orthodox response to the CDF document.

http://www.zenit.org/article-20104?l=english

Great find. Thanks, Joe!

I agree. I think the document is intended to speak more to "modern" Catholics rather than the Orthodox, but it has its consequences there too as Joe has pointed out.

I do not gloat but only point out where the logic, ("logos" if you will) takes us.

In Christ,

lm

His point, and your thoughts certainly do go to the heart of the matter, because to me it shows we have fundamentally different conceptions about some important things like what makes the church itself, where does it subsist and how is it governed.

That is the reality I am speaking of.


Agreed.


I think both sides are closer in the sense that there is greater understanding and communication of the differences. In terms of the differences themselves, I think there are no actual changes. We shouldn't mistake activity with progress.

Joe,

Thanks for the link. I guess I just don't see what unity means without union of mind, heart and soul.

In fact, I would argue, and have argued, that those who want to proclaim that they are Catholic but reject what the Church teaches (no need to give examples for there are many) are themsleves not in union except in name only.

On the other hand, I respect your position because it is honest and sees the implications of what the document means. I think your argument has shortcomings which I pointed out above, but it is honest which is what cannot be said for many who where the badge of "Catholic" while they reject what the Church teaches.

In Christ,

lm

I would also only add that there is a greater understanding of the similarities as well, which is indicative of progress. That being said, the great ressourcement movement which began in (French) Catholicism and heavily influenced modern Orthodoxy helped to recast some of the positions previously taken in light of the renewal of interest in patristics. In particular, there has been great dialogue and rediscovery of the Eucharistic nature of the Church on both sides, not to mention its relationship to the exercise of primacy. This has helped many to see that we are not as far apart as we originally assumed, without denying any essential differences or the fact that there is a great need for ongoing dialogue.

God bless!

Gordo

Dear all,

I just made a comment on our new blog regarding Bishop Hilarion's interview on Zenit. Rather than take up space here, I'll post the link (I hope that's not bad form!). I am very interested in reactions of list members.

The link is: http://hrmonline.org/cblog/index.php?/archives/9-Defective-Churches.html#extended

Hieromonk Maximos

One thing that has increasingly concerned me in the various discussions here, and elsewhere, is that hardly anybody ever seems willing or able to cite any clear, authoritative Catholic magesterial statements from prior to 1960 in support of a position.

The CDF statement makes clear that Second Vatican Council did not change anything, only deepen it. It restated the statement of Pope Paul VI that what has always been believed by the Church is still to be believed.

Therefore, I think that to further my understanding of this current document, I am called upon as a Catholic to study and meditate upon authoritative magesterial pronouncements from the past that pertain to the subject, and seek to harmonize what has come out now with what has been clearly taught from before.

Readings statements such as Pope Piux XI's Moralium Animos (1928) and Pope Piux XII's Humane Generis (1950) seem to indicate to me that non-Catholics returning to Catholicism is the crux of the issue, from a Catholic perspective at least.

Though I can certainly understand how the Orthodox would understandably hold to the same idea in reverse.

Best to all,
Robster

Wish someone had some common sense and used a different word or term instead of defective when mentioning the Orthodox Church, being presently a Latin I can find quite a lot of "defects" within the Roman Rite in America...

james

Nice blog Fr. Maximos...

Fr. Maximus,

It seems that you have hit the nail on the head here:


The issue may very well be whether the Platonic ideal (invisible Church) takes precedent over the Aristotlean--form in matter (visible Church). The latter seems to be more consistent with the Incarnation. But the Platonic ideal reminds us that the body is not complete until the second coming. Therefore, can it not be both/and rather than either/or? I see the Pope, especially this present one and his predecessor, as leading men to the voice of their conscience which Newman called the aborignal Vicar of Christ. And this present Pope has said (as Cardinal Ratzinger) that the authority of the Papacy depends upon this voice of conscience.

In Christ,

lm

Robster certainly makes an interesting point. But bear in mind, the Catholic Church was officially agnostic on the question of the validity of Orthodox sacraments for a long time. My understanding is that the official, magisterial recognition of them came only at Vatican II (any corrections on this point gladly received!). I don't think there's any going back on this point, but where it takes us is what interests me...

fr Maximos
Holy Resurrection Monastery
www.hrmonline.org [hrmonline.org]

Non-Catholics "returning" to "Catholicism"?

First of all, you would need to define the nature of the "return". To be sure, the nature of the return for Protestants is quite distinct. The same approach cannot and should not be applied to the Orthodox. As it pertains to Orthodox Churches, I would say that any "return" would by necessity be a mutual one on a number of levels. The document even highlights the fact that the Catholic Church in union with Peter is lacking in the full realization of its Catholicity in history as a result of wounded unity between the Churches.

Secondly, what is "Catholicism"? Is this a term used in any magisterial document? Perhaps so, but I am not aware of it. "Christianity" is also a term that I do not believe I have seen. I believe the word "Church" and "churches" are used, however, as we have seen.

God bless,

Gordo

Dear Joe...

I read the document online at vatican.va and I must say .. here is yet another example of me not knowing what the heck I am talking about.

I asked Father Anthony to remove my previous posts on the subject because I do not want to add to the confusion.

I am going to keep my mouth shut and read what everyone else thinks. There are better minds than mine here. Boy .. I have done nothing but prove my ignorance since I returned to this board.


Peace to our Orthodox brothers.
-ray

Gordo, I think I would describe 'return' as those who are not Catholic having to affirm all authoritative beliefs of Catholicism to the extent that they do not do so at present. That would seem reasonable to me. Pius XI used the word 'return' in my cited encyclical, calling on those who are separated from the one true Church of Christ to return to it.

I have found nothing in any Catholic teaching as I have learned it about any kind of mutual return. Doesn't seem to me that the Catholic Church has to return anywhere. I would welcome a reference to any official magesterial document that elaborates on the need for a mutual return, and what deficiencies Catholicism has that require such a return.

Despite whatever lack of ideals may exist during the unfolding of Christian history, I do not accept the idea that the Catholic Church, being that it's the Church of Christ, is in any way lacking in being fully Holy, fully Catholic, and fully Apostolic. One only has to go back to Dominus Ieus to see that it clearly talks about the unicity of the Church, as one Catholic and apostolic church, having to be held as true by all Catholics and "that the unicity and the unity of the Church � like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity � will never be lacking."

The word 'Catholic' appears in numerous magesterial teachings, including the two documents from Pius XI and Pius XII. I would think that Catholicism would simply mean that which is authoritatively taught by Catholic authority.

Best to all,
Robster

Fr. Maximos, I believe that, at least partially, official recognition of Eastern Orthodox sacraments can be traced back to Pope Leo XIII when he dealt with Anglican orders in the 1890s.

Regards,
Robster