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

The Church is not calling the Orthodox (or anyone else, for that matter) "a defect". The Church is calling attention to a constant teaching - that the Petrine Primacy is an indispensable part of God's Will for His Church. The Catholic Church cannot be forbidden to teach the Catholic Faith.

Neither the Pope nor the Catholic teaching authority claims that the Orthodox Churches are not really Churches! To the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that these are our Sister Churches - and that expression has a serious meaning.

As Ut Unum Sint reminds us, the Petrine Primacy cannot be discarded, but there is nothing to prevent and everything to urge a common discussion, particularly between Catholics and Orthodox, on the calibration of that primacy, and particularly on how it is to be exercised for the edification of the Church.

Fr. Serge

Alexandr,

I agree 100% with what you said.

Joe

Dear Father Serge,

Bless!

I understand and appreciate your clarification, and I would like to see the actual document. The article is extremely disturbing in the references to the other churches. I understand that our Protestant brethren lack 'fullness of the faith' but still retain elements of the Truth of Jesus Christ.

I just wonder what impact this will have towards the continued dialogues between the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox. I am not used to an approach of reconciliation where you call your estranged family member a name and expect to be welcomed with open arms.

In Christ,

Michael

Amen! Well said as always, Father Serge!

Gordo

Read my post here (a few posts back) where I prove that the quoting of other documents (in the interview) are often mis-quoted and other errors.

Also - this item is an article ... not a pronouncement, not infallible, etc... essentially only a portion of a casual interview with a Cardinal. Nothing more. Keep in mind that there are no special power or authority to a Cardinal ... He is an ordinary bishop who has been given the power to vote on certain issues when the college is called into session. He is just a vote - and has no special authority in himself.

Also, Vatican policy is not set or published by way of - interviews. Common sense.

This article can not really be understood well without knowledge of the several official documents that it draws from (and often misquotes by being too casual with the wording).

To read it as it stands, without knowledge of the original documents it is referring to - leads one to many false impressions. But in as much as many people do not allow bishops of the Roman Catholic church to speak as normal human beings (every word is expected to carry the weight of a infallibility) ... far, far, far, too much is being assumed that this is some kind of official stance or pronouncement or what-ever.

People are trying to make it into some new declaration or pronouncement.

It is not.

What a mess.

I have been trying to contact the Vatican publishing house to let them know what is happening out here ... and why ... but no luck so far. Their va domain is confusing to me. Also - the Vatican curia is mostly Italian with very little English.

Put yourself back at peace. Nothing has changed and one can only get wrong impressions from this all-too-human blunder.

As a good man once said to me "This too - shall pass."

-ray

I have written (email) to at least three official in the Vatican Publishing office to inform them how this article is being mistaken for a new position by the Roman Catholic church.

I have informed them of the mis-quotes and errors in the article, and how people are not taking it as an article of an interview ... but as some sort of official statement for the world which was approved by the Pope.

It does us no good for us to sit here and grumble - and not talk to the Vatican about it. Do they know how some of us are interpreting it? Do they know why? I think not.

Paul said (or was it Jesus himself) that if you have something against your brother - go to him and talk with him. Bring cancers and festering sores out into the sunlight ... don't just let fungus grow in the dark and eat away at our hearts.

Just my luck - I probably emailed people who only understand Italian.

Let us see what happens.

I will let you know what the Vatican says about this mess.

If they respond to me.

-ray

Ray,

The CDF document that you are referring to (i.e., Ad Catholicam Profundius; a.k.a., Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church) is not an interview; instead, it is an official responsum ad dubium of the Latin Church's Doctrinal Congregation to various questions that have been brought to its attention.

Eastern Christians may not agree with the theology underlying the responses to the questions proposed, but it does reflect the modern position of the Roman Church.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - There is nothing new in the CDF document; instead, it simply reiterates what the Latin Church said at its last particular synod (i.e., Vatican II).

According to the teaching of the Orthodox Churches, is it possible to hold another Ecumenical Council to determine the heresy of the filioque, Palamas� distinction between essence and energies as true doctrine or the fact that Petrine ministry as understood post Vatican I and beyond are false. If it is possible, should it not be done, because these issues appear to be, from the Orthodox point of view (as I understand if from what has been set forth in this thread and others), matters upon which a large numbers of otherwise faithful err? Or is it the case, that the opinion which one holds on these questions is in fact relatively unimportant and secondary?

I realize that I am asking hard questions, but sometimes these need to be asked.

On the term sister Churches, then Cardinal Ratzinger stated the following in the "Note on Expression, "Sister Churches":

Here is the link to the document referenced above:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Im,

I see no reason why we couldn't hold an Ecumenical Council. There are no a priori conditions for having a council. It would seem to me that as long as all of the metropolitans agreed, and the council was received by all of the Orthodox, that it would have, at the very least, the status of an important synod, if not an Ecumenical council. Since my own view is that the Patriarchal offices are post-apostolic and not immediately by divine institution (I believe that they were created by the imperial church for the purpose of efficient coordination of all of the empire's churches), I don't think you have to have some kind of "Pentarchy" in order to have an ecumenical council and I do not think that the participation of Rome is necessary, since they are in schism from the Orthodox Church.

Joe

Joe,

I think you are right to say one must be able to be called. There must be a living magisterium. Since, as I understand the ultimate teaching authority for Orthodoxy is an Ecumenical Council, such a thing must theoretically be able to be called. It cannot simply be a thing of the past.

Is there some manner then in which such a Council would be called? Who, eg, would initiate it, state that it will be Ecumenical and what would it mean to have all the Orthodox in attendance? I really am asking about an Ecumenical Council and not a Synod.

lm

Let's see, an ecumenical council, hmmm! I would suggest dressing the metropolitans in different color robes. It would help in identifying remains from the small scraps of fabric left after the fight over who has primacy and authority. Then, be sure to separate the old and new calendarists by more distance than the average human can throw a prayer book or an anathema. In all seriousness, a council could address and resolve some issues that have needed attention for a long time. However, I do wonder if the divisions and factions need to find some common ground before a council could happen. Perhaps a single issue of such importance that all would rally around it and put the wrangling aside.

Some thoughts, responses and comments:

Ray Kaliss: Yes, there is nothing new here in the sense that I think the church is simply restating what it has always held. The importance of being under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff has been stressed as critical and necessary going back centuries in Catholic thought. The current CDF document is actually relatively mild in tone, compared to what the Ecumencial councils of Florence and Trent had to say on this. While the document being issued here was not an infallible document itself, I would think that it's content is quite infallible as a restatement of something that was already infallible.

Todd: While I have heard of Eastern Catholic efforts to delegitimize Lyons II, Florence, Trent, and First Vatican Council, I don't believe that I have ever heard of Second Vatican Council being derogated in this way. If you want, I can probably find some hardline Traditional Latin Catholics to introduce you to. :-) But you do have consistency in what you say.

Fr. Serge: With all due respect, my understanding is that the dogmatics of the issue of Papal Supreme Unverisal Jurisdiction were definitively hammered out at First Vatican Council, and the general teaching was even restated at Second Vatican Council. If you are refering to a formulation of voluntary, prudential, discretionay guidelines, I think that can be genuinely constructive, but my understanding is that there would be no way for a pope to bind any future successor in this area. Having had the opporunity to discuss this subject with a curial priest at the Vatican in 2004, I was told that while the defined dogmatics of jurisdiction and infallibility would have to be upheld, everything outside of that is presumably open for discussion.

Im: Thank you for an informative post from church teaching. I am increasingly beginning to believe that Catholicism must be approached like a major, household appliance: when all else fails, it's time to read the instructions, folks.

Best to all,
Robster

They've all been addressed. The Filioque at 4 Constantinople (also known as the Eighth Ecumenical Council) and Palamism at the last Byzantine councils at Constantinople (also known as the Ninth Ecumenical Council) in the 14th century. The GOA site does list the Answer of the Synod of Constantinople in 1895 to Pope Leo XIII as one of the basic sources of teaching in the Orthodox Church. http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7064.asp


There is no ecumenical council blueprint, period. They varied in who called them, who attended, who affirmed them (or didn't affirm them), etc. from the start. The seven councils hold a special place of honor in the church, but they are in fact no more important, true, or more binding than the council that affirmed the place of Palamism in the church. The definition of dogma did not stop with the triumph over iconoclasm.