|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,517
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
The "Ravenna Document" was the main topic of discussion by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation at their 74th meeting last week (hosted this time around by the Orthodox) at Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, from June 2 to 4. http://usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-084.shtmlIf our respective hierarchs and theologians continue to talk like this with honesty, there is always hope for mutual understanding or compromise. These dialogues (on the international and regional levels) by respected Church theologians carry some weight, don't you think? Amado Amado, What kind of compromise do think can be reached specifically regarding the role and nature of the papacy? Joe Joe, Honestly, I don't know what the "compromise" will be! But judging from the breakthrough "Ravenna Document," the initial "compromise" would be what the Orthodox have already accepted about the Papacy, plus the Pope being the "protos" of the universal (i.e., a reunited) Church. This has to be officially adopted and recognized by both sides. The only hurdle is the ROC-MP. Supremacy of jurisdiction and papal infallibility will take a longer and deeper discussion by the International Commission. But, the Pope now being accepted and recognized as "protos" of the universal Church, these two attributes tacked by the Catholic Church to the "Petrine ministry" should become logical ultimately if only to give meat to the authority of the universal "protos." Amado
Last edited by Amadeus; 06/11/08 05:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
I would also add that a benefit of the refining nature of dialog is a further clarification of what precisely is essential and what is only transitory in terms of definitions around the papal ministry. So many historical additions to the role of the Pope, such as the naming of bishops for other Churches, are clearly not constitutive of this ministry.
In ICXC,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Remember that such documents, in themselves, do not (and cannot) commit either the Catholics or the Orthodox. These are documents for the Synods, episcopal conferences, and Local Churches to respond to and comment upon.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Here is a question primarily for my Orthodox brethren, "How much can we Orthodox compromise in order to achieve union?" Perhaps, there is another way of construing papal primacy that would be acceptable both to us and to the Catholic party?
Joe I think two things need to happen: Resolving the issue of Constantinople IV and accepting that use of the Filioque is an acceptable local practice. I could compromise on that. We need to return to the pre schism situation. In other words all councils held without participation of Orthodoxy could not be viewed as anything but local councils which would have no binding status on a reconciled church. Beyond that I think we need to not think about a grand re-union, but a reconciliation that involves the two sides existing basically as they are with mutual recognition and the ability to pastorally care for members of the other church in a uniform way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
Here is a question primarily for my Orthodox brethren, "How much can we Orthodox compromise in order to achieve union?" Perhaps, there is another way of construing papal primacy that would be acceptable both to us and to the Catholic party?
Joe Not one jot, jittle or iota. We believe that we have preserved the Faith in it's entirety. To compromise the Faith for some "feel good" sense of reunion is to fall squarely under the definition of the heresy of ecumenism. When our Lord met the woman at the well. "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews," he said. "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." (Jn 4:22,23) For Our Lord Jesus, Truth was not relative. Worship and doctrine were not matters of personal opinion. He was, in fact, that Truth. There was one faith revealed to the world and one Messiah who had come to save it�the Jews first, but then ultimately Samaritans and Gentiles, disciples being made of all nations. For the Orthodox Christian there can be no deviation from the fact that Orthodox is that very faith of the apostles which has established the Universe. For long before there were papacies and protestants, the Orthodox faithful have proclaimed what the apostles taught, what the councils have decreed. This we believe; this we confess in word and in deed and which we depict in the Holy Icons. Truth has been revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ, not a partial truth, not a theory about truth, but truth indeed, God in the flesh reconciling the world unto himself. The repository of that truth is first and foremost the Church, the Body of Christ, wherein the Holy Spirit dwells. That Church, founded on the day of Pentecost, and forever withstanding all the assaults of hell, is the Orthodox Church. Neither denomination nor sect, neither religion nor philosophical system, she invites the entire universe to enter into to communion with her Head, even Jesus Christ. She is the Church Catholic because her teaching is full; she is Orthodox because her worship is right. An essential question must be answered. Are we, or are we not, the Church of Christ? That is, is Orthodoxy true? The response of the ecumenical movement is that it is not. If the Orthodox Church, through a desire to work ecumenically with the separated bodies of Christendom ceases to proclaim that this is the True Faith, that this is the Church, then we are being lied to, as well as lying to ourselves. The adult convert has had to declare in public at his conversion: "I believe and confess that this Church is the Bride of Christ, and that therein is true salvation, which was in the Ark of Noah at the flood." Yet such a belief is incumbent upon each Orthodox, whether adult convert or Orthodox from the age of forty days. It ultimately decides whether or not he believes this to be true. How each Orthodox Christian lives, the moral values he seeks to inculcate in his children. the vision of the future, of America, of the world, that is, of the oikoumene, that God has revealed himself unto us, that we have found the true faith, will determine how he has answered this question. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Remember that such documents, in themselves, do not (and cannot) commit either the Catholics or the Orthodox. These are documents for the Synods, episcopal conferences, and Local Churches to respond to and comment upon.
Fr. Serge This is true. Has there been any example of these documents influencing any official teaching? God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Here is a question primarily for my Orthodox brethren, "How much can we Orthodox compromise in order to achieve union?" Perhaps, there is another way of construing papal primacy that would be acceptable both to us and to the Catholic party?
Joe Joe, I would like to ask a clarifying question here. Compromise regarding what? If the fullness of magisterial and dogmatic teaching authority which is binding on all Orthodox Christians resides solely with an Ecumenical Council, precisely which dogma defined by which Ecumenical Council would need to be compromised? God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
precisely which dogma defined by which Ecumenical Council would need to be compromised? A compromise would probably need to be agreed upon regarding the Filioque as I stated above. (although I'm not Joe)
Last edited by AMM; 06/12/08 07:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
precisely which dogma defined by which Ecumenical Council would need to be compromised? A compromise would probably need to be agreed upon regarding the Filioque as I stated above. (although I'm not Joe) True - but as it pertains to the Apostolic See of Rome? Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
True - but as it pertains to the Apostolic See of Rome?
Gordo 6) �In recalling, with theologians and ecumenicists, that the faith is essentially the same in the Roman Church and in Orthodoxy, we understand that doctrine elaborated after the schism by one of the two unilaterally, that is, in the absence of the other, cannot be part of what is essential in this faith.�
7) Thus, doctrine and discipline defined at the General Councils of the West after the Schism oblige only the Latin Church, and definitions made at Orthodox synods after the Schism oblige only the Orthodox Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
Dear friends,
It seems to me that the issue of Papal primacy is biggest road block to reunion. With all due respect, it seems pretty insurmountable to me.
The Orthodox are never going to accept the definition of Vatican I. The only way we will have reunion is if Rome renounces Vatican I, the doctrine of supreme, universal jurisdiction of the Pope and papal infallibility.
I have been challenged by a certain Latin Rite friend of mine to have integrity in my attitude toward the Petrine Ministry. I think my Latin rite friend is correct.
I have been a Zoghby guy; I believe in everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches, and I conceive of union with the Pope of Rome according to the limits of the first millennium.
If Zoghby is right, I can remain a Greek Catholic. But if Zoghby is wrong, or, if his solution is never going to be accepted by Rome, than perhaps, I should start considering which Orthodox jurisdiction I want to join.
This is the honest position I have come to. I really love my Church, and even though I am not Rusyn myself, I have developed a deep affection for the Ruthenian Church and all the Slavic Churches. I am very attached to the people and friends in my parish. I figure I am already an Orthodox, I go to a Byzantine Church, have Byzantine Liturgy and prayers. But every time this issue comes up, I am very challenged by it.
It is one thing to embrace Palamite theology of essence and energies, to reject the use of indulgences and the doctrine of Purgatory, to reject the Filioque as a dogma; the Augustinian doctrine of inherited guilt, with its attendant doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (Some Roman Catholics will say that my position on these issues already cuts me off from the See of Rome; others will grant these as legitimate position for an Eastern Catholic).
But it seems to me one cannot be in union with Rome with a different conception of the Petrine ministry than Rome herself has. We do not live in a parallel universe where the Pope is infallible for Latins, but not for Greeks, or where some souls go to purgatory, but it does not even exist as a potentiality for others.
I do not bring any of this to be a downer, this reflects my honest thinking on the whole issue.
Blessings,
Lance
Last edited by lanceg; 06/12/08 10:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Thank you my brethren. Your responses to my question were quite helpful. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that we Orthodox compromise on any matter of doctrine. I am just as opposed to sacrificing Orthodox doctrine as anyone. I was really asking what kinds of practical authority could we give to the Bishop of Rome that would not compromise our Orthodox identity.
I'm a firm believer that we cannot give the papacy universal jurisdiction, nor can we accept papal infallibility. But what about allowing the Bishop of Rome to have a kind of "office of inspection" that hears appeals in some cases and aids in settling disputes between local churches?
I personally agree with Lance that the obstacle of papal primacy is insurmountable. It was my realization of this fact that played a role in my conversion to Orthodoxy when I found that the Zoghby initiative was going nowhere and that the Orthodox Church preached what I really believed in my heart.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Dear JS:
The Zoghby Initiative also was pivotal in my becoming Orthodox too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Since the Zhogby initiative has been mentioned, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Response (now Benedict XVI) should be noted: Congregation for the Eastern Churches Prot. No. 251/75
June 11, 1997
His Beatitude Maximos V HAKIM
Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem.
Your Beatitude,
The news of the project for "rapprochement" between the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch has given rise to various echoes and comments in the public opinion.
The Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity have made an effort to study and closely examine the areas which fall within their competence in this domain; and the heads of these Dicasteries have been charged by the Holy Father to express some considerations to Your Beatitude.
The Holy See is greatly interested in and encourages initiatives which favor the road to a complete reconciliation of the Christian Churches. She appreciates the motivation behind the efforts undertaken for several decades by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate, which is trying to hasten the coming of this full communion so greatly desired. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches recognizes the duty for every Christian (Can. 902), which becomes for the Eastern Catholic Churches a special duty (munus) (Can. 903), whose exercise will be governed "through special norms of particular law while the Roman Apostolic Church functions as the moderator for the universal church" (Can. 904).
This is all the more true for two communities which see themselves as being closely united because of the ties of common origin and common ecclesiastical tradition, as well as by a long experience of common initiatives which no doubt place them into a privileged situation of proximity.
The Church's desire is to find adequate ways and means to progress further along the road of brotherly understanding and, to encourage new structures which further such progress towards full communion.
Pursuing such goals, Your Patriarchate is motivated by a sensibility and a knowledge of the situation and an experience which are peculiarly its own. The Holy See desires to contribute to this process by expressing some considerations which she believes will eventually help the future progress of this initiative.
The Dicasteries involved appreciate very much that common pastoral initiatives are undertaken by Catholics and Orthodox, according to the instructions found in the Directory for the application of the principles and norms for Ecumenism, especially in the areas of Christian formation, of education, a common effort in charity, and for the sharing of prayer when this is possible.
As to experiences of a theological nature, it is necessary to labor patiently and prudently, without precipitation, in order to help both parties to travel along the same road.
The first level in this sharing concerns the language and the categories employed in the dialogue: one must be very careful that the use of the same word or the same concept is not used to express different points of view and interpretations of a historical and doctrinal nature, nor lends itself to some kind of oversimplification.
A second level of involvement necessitates that the sharing of the content of the dialogue not be limited only to the two direct participants: the Patriarchates of the Catholic Greek-Melkites and the Orthodox of Antioch, but that it involve the Confessions with whom the two Patriarchates are in full communion: the Catholic communion for the former and the Orthodox for the latter. Even the Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities of the Patriarchate of Antioch have brought forth a similar preoccupation. This global implication also will permit averting the risk that some initiatives, meant to promote the full communion at the local level, might give rise to a lack of understanding or suspicions beyond the generosity of the intentions.
Now we consider the elements contained in the profession of faith of his Excellency Kyr Elias Zoghby, Greek-Melkite Catholic Archbishop emeritus of Baalbek, signed in February 1995, and to which numerous hierarchs of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Synod have adhered.
It is clear that this Patriarchate is an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it shares. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time.
On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church's faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Num. 22 and 23, and in the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio Number 2.
As to the modalities for exercising the Petrine ministry in our time, a question which is distinct from the doctrinal aspect, it is true that the Holy Father has recently desired to remind us how "we may seek--together, of course--the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned" (Ut unum sint, 95); however, if it is legitimate to also deal with this on a local level, it is also a duty to do this always in harmony with a vision of the universal Church. Touching this matter, it is appropriate to be reminded that in any case, "The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is--in God's plan--an essential requisite of full and visible communion" (Ut unum sint, 97).
As to the various aspects of communicatio in sacris, it is necessary to maintain a constant dialogue in order to understand the meaning of the current regulation in force, in the light of underlying theological presuppositions; premature, unilateral initiatives are to be avoided, where the eventual results may not have been sufficiently considered, they could produce serious consequences for other Eastern Catholics, especially for those living in the same region.
In summary, the fraternal dialogue undertaken by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Partriarchate will be better able to serve the ecumenical dialogue to the degree that it strives to involve the entire Catholic Church to which it belongs in the maturing of new sensitivities. There is good reason to believe that the Orthodox in general so share the same worry, due also to the obligations of communion within their own body.
The Dicasteries involved are ready to collaborate in order to further the exchange of verifications and echoes; they express their satisfaction for these meetings which have been held on this subject with the representatives of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church, and they hope and wish that these meetings continue and intensify in the future.
Not doubting at all that Your Beatitude would want to share these ideas, we beg you to accept the expression of our fraternal and cordial greetings.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Achille Card. Silvestrini
Edward Card. Cassidy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
It is clear that this Patriarchate is an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it shares. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time.
On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church's faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Num. 22 and 23, and in the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio Number 2.
As to the modalities for exercising the Petrine ministry in our time, a question which is distinct from the doctrinal aspect, it is true that the Holy Father has recently desired to remind us how "we may seek--together, of course--the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned" (Ut unum sint, 95); however, if it is legitimate to also deal with this on a local level, it is also a duty to do this always in harmony with a vision of the universal Church. Touching this matter, it is appropriate to be reminded that in any case, "The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is--in God's plan--an essential requisite of full and visible communion" (Ut unum sint, 97). It is this kind of clarity and balance which keeps me Catholic and helps me to maintain such a high regard for Pope Benedict, whose hand can be discerned all over this document! One cannot simply deny or ignore the fact that the Church existed and taught authoritatively in the Second Millennium. Nor should one simply ignore the First Millennium. Rather, the second must be interpreted in continuity with the first. In ICXC, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
