0 members (),
375
guests, and
100
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,531
Posts417,688
Members6,183
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1
Administrator Member
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1 |
Administrators: either shut this thread down at once or announce that anything goes.
Edmac Neither is going to be happening. Anyone that decides to get out of line and to transgress the forum rule regarding charity will be suspended or banned. The thread was offered as a proposal for discussion and if you find yourself unable to discuss the proposal charitably then refrain from posting on it, and if enough so do that, then the thread will die.
In IC XC, Father Anthony+ Administrator
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
That's like asking you if Orthodoxy accepted it was in schism, accepted all the post-Schism Western councils as Ecumenical, accepted that Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception were dogmas of the True Faith, that Orthodoxy has strayed from the Ancient Faith in regards to contraception and divorce, would you take it?
Obviously not, and it's sort of insulting to even ask. Who would take such a deal?
Alexis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Just thinking out loud, really, but let me throw this out for discussion. Let us say that Rome places all it's cards on the table, and seriously talks reunion. Papal supremacy, infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc, all thrown out. Along with the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception. Vatican I and II are condemned, and all western councils after the schism are recognized as local councils only. The Filoque is downgraded to a local tradition. Constantinople retains primacy of honor. Rome is replaced in the dyptichs in the 5th spot, behind Jerusalem, and in front of Moscow, as penance for the schism, but still retaining the distinction of being one of the ancient Patriarchates. Western Metropolitanates are established in Munich, Stockholm, Paris, Madrid, Prague, Bratislava, Warsaw, London, Dublin, Tokyo, New York, Mexico City, Buenos Aries, Sao Paulo and Sydney. All Catholic bishops and cardinals are brought before a panel of their fellow Orthodox bishops and proven Catholic bishops, and evaluated on their orthodoxy. Those proven orthodox retain their episcopacy. Those who do not, are retired to monasteries. Russia, Greece and Serbia can provide enough temporary bishops to cover the west until their own can be trained. Eastern Churches in western lands and western Churches in Eastern lands would be metochions of their respective patriarchates.
Any takers?
Alexandr I couldn't even begin to accept such a proposal, I'm afraid. While I do think that Rome currently exercises too much influence on the internal operations of the various Catholic Churches, I also absolutely affirm that Rome has a unique place and authority within the Communion, and that this is not a "human development", but is part of the definition of the Church. How this role is exercised is something that must be discussed and settled by both sides, but I can't accept any proposal that simply denies this ancient reality, even as a Melkite. I certainly don't see how Rome could be placed behind Constantinople in any way, and personally it seems like an insult to the Apostles Peter and Paul to place their Church behind one that was essentially brought up by Imperial authority centuries after Christ. Obviously I love the tradition of Constantinople, and it's the tradition of my Church (in spirit, if not yet by Canonical jurisdiction), but Constantinople has no place replacing the ancient Rome. As for the other aspects of your proposal, I feel they're up for discussion. My main issue is with apparent disregard for Rome and its ancient and Apostolic prerogatives, which are aspects of the Church I can't deny in good conscience, not out of submission to the Pope (and I love the current Pope of Rome very dearly), but out of submission to the Apostolic Tradition. In fact, if such a proposal were accepted by the Catholic hierarchy, I'd have serious misgivings, and likely join whatever "Eastern Catholic" splinter group that would arise in hopes that the "real Catholic Church" would emerge again. Perhaps we'd be called the "Catholic Old Believers"?  Peace and God bless!
Last edited by Ghosty; 06/15/08 06:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
Oh my! Who'd a thunk that my mere musing would generate such a vehement response! For years now, on this forum, I have suffered through Roman attempts to out do a Philadelphia lawyer in trying to rationalize the filoque, Papal supremacy, Papal infallibility, etc, etc, etc, downplaying their importance, trying vainly to define it in a way that does not mean what it means, all so that the Orthodox would accept them. It has been enough to cross one's eyes! All I attempted to do was to portray a view of reunion as the Orthodox would see it. I am not a lawyer, and one does not need to be one in order to know when one is being snookered. The Roman Church believes these things are a part of their faith and will not, if the responses received thus far are any indication, surrender them for the sake of unity. Just be aware, my Roman friends that the Orthodox view these same things as diametrically opposed to the faith, and will not accept them under any circumstances, 50 dollar explanations and verbal contortions, notwithstanding.
So maybe Vladika Hilarion is right. Why waste time trying to reconcile 2 irreconcilable points of view, when such time and effort would be better spent in fighting humanism and the hagarenes.
Alexandr
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I still prefer the Zoghby initiative:
1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Oh my! Who'd a thunk that my mere musing would generate such a vehement response! For years now, on this forum, I have suffered through Roman attempts to out do a Philadelphia lawyer in trying to rationalize the filoque, Papal supremacy, Papal infallibility, etc, etc, etc, downplaying their importance, trying vainly to define it in a way that does not mean what it means, all so that the Orthodox would accept them. It has been enough to cross one's eyes! All I attempted to do was to portray a view of reunion as the Orthodox would see it. I am not a lawyer, and one does not need to be one in order to know when one is being snookered. The Roman Church believes these things are a part of their faith and will not, if the responses received thus far are any indication, surrender them for the sake of unity. Just be aware, my Roman friends that the Orthodox view these same things as diametrically opposed to the faith, and will not accept them under any circumstances, 50 dollar explanations and verbal contortions, notwithstanding.
So maybe Vladika Hilarion is right. Why waste time trying to reconcile 2 irreconcilable points of view, when such time and effort would be better spent in fighting humanism and the hagarenes.
Alexandr Alexandr, I think the visceral reaction you see (although that is something of an exaggeration) is particularly to the notion that Rome must now do "penance" for the schism or for so-called "heresy" by losing its proper place in the Pentarchy. Faithful Catholics believe that Rome's Petrine primacy is not simply a matter of pious tradition or even based on a shifting Imperial polity (where is the Imperium these days, BTW?), but rather it is based on the will of Jesus Christ for an Apostolic See which was the site of the martyrdom of the Prince of the Apostles and the Missionary to the Gentiles as well as the matrix (or "womb") of Christian unity, as the Fathers called the Church of Rome. Peter's peripatetic ministry begun in Jerusalem was finally and firmly rooted in the city of Rome, which received his martyr's blood as testimony to his rock solid Faith. So as a matter of Catholic faith, the place of the Apostolic See, the place of Elder Rome is not subject even to the whims of a majority vote of an ecumenical council. It was not for nothing that every other patriarchal see in the Pentarchy defined itself according to an explicit Petrine connection: Constantinople - St. Andrew, Peter's brother, Antioch - St. Peter ministry, Alexandria - St. Mark, Peter's disciple, with Jerusalem as the site of the whole Apostolic college with Peter exercising primacy in the midst of his brother apostles as entrusted to him by Jesus Christ until beginning his itinerant ministry where St. James was left to preside over the local church. Regarding the other matters, not all points are in every way irreconcilable. I do believe that second millennium definitions in the West can be re-read and properly refined in light of the first millennium tradition as well as certain theological developments within Orthodoxy in the second millennium. Second millennium definitions are far from perfect even from a Catholic point of view (recent popes have said as much, I believe), even if they are seen as authoritative, infallible and irreformable. But to present your proposal as the be all end all to ecumenical relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a bit over the top, is it not? Do you really think that if your proposal cannot be accepted here on this forum, theological dialogue is a waste of time? In ICXC, Gordo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179 |
Gordo,
I'm continually puzzled by the odd claims that there's something intrinsically wrong, flawed and/or in desparate need of massive refinement with the normative, immutable teaching witness of the Church at Lyons II, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I. I would certainly say no more than there's any problem or issue with first millennium tradition.
For the sake of paving the way toward unity all around, how would folks react if I were to propose that the normative infallible elements of the first millenium are in real need of re-reading, selective editing, and refinement in light of the undeniable truths and treasures of the second millenium, the incomparable insights and brilliance of the Church's theological giants and masters in medieval Latin scholasticism, as well as the valuable piety and truths that could be gleaned from Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts?
Best, Robster
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
There are two different points of view, and from each side, that point of view is valid...and therefore, each side should try to respect the other's feelings.
I respect all that Rob and Gordon have set forth from their points of view regarding the role of the Papacy, as much as I respect Alexandr's Orthodox point of view.
If only there was a way to find common ground somewhere in between....but, unfortunately 1000 years of differing cultural understanding and approaches, as well as ecclesiastical estrangement, will take time. Fortunately, we have esteemed clerics who meet yearly towards this cause of rapprochement.
For the record, I do not think that any one needs to seek penance of the other...
In any case, let's not allow this to disintigrate into a polemic, because that will only serve the delight of the evil one.
Perhaps we have said enough...
In Christ, Alice, Moderator
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Rob,
Any rereading that I would propose would be according to the same authentic spirit and method of the reform and renewal of the Second Vatican Council. Even a cursory read of the conciliar texts of Vatican II reveals a qualitative (and in my own mind, superior) difference as compared to earlier conciliar texts of the second millennium, such as that of the very lop-sided Vatican I Council. The difference? Ad Fontes - a return to the sources of Tradition in East and West.
That said, even Vatican II, while authoritative, is not "perfect."
Finally, sorry to say, but I think you go quite beyond Catholic sense and sensibility (and the Magisterium of the Church) if you are comparing our Orthodox brothers and sisters to Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts.
God bless,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Fortunately, we have esteemed clerics who meet yearly towards this cause of rapprochement. Alice, As Father Serge reminds us, the decisions of these meetings are not binding in any way on the parties involved or their respective churches. But I do believe they serve an essential purpose of helping us to understand - and value in a certain respect - the differences which exist and have developed over time. These differences have often produced a greater distance, in letter or in spirit, from an earlier time of unity and are not solely the result of Western developments. Rapproachment is thus facilitated, IMHO, by ressourcement on both sides, but always in light of the "new situation", to quote Pope John Paul II of blessed memory. Thus the Spirit of the Fathers of the unified Church can speak anew to every age and situation. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
While I think that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Alexandr's proposal, I must confess that it is unrealistic. I think a more realistic proposal would be for Rome to renounce Vatican I, to remove the filioque from the Creed, and to regard second millenium developments in Roman Catholic theology as theolugemon (sp?) of the West. I do not think that it is essential that Rome have the first position in the Church, but out of charity I think it would be wise to restore Rome to her former position.
In my view (and in the view of many Orthodox theologians) the patriarchates are not of apostolic/divine institution but rather are of political institution. There is no reason why the ecumenical patriarchate shouldn't be transferred to Moscow, since it is now the largest of all of the Orthodox Churches. In the event of reunion, Rome would be the largest of the Churches.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179 |
Alice,
My regrets if my post is coming off in such a negative light. For what it's worth, I'm not saying anything with regard to the Eastern Orthodox, only toward a Catholic approach that doesn't seem to value and uphold the immutable fullness of the Catholic faith. I'll strive to be as non-polemical as possible, and I will make this my last post on the thread.
I do think there are issues with the millieu of ecumenism ushered into the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.
But I think a more immediate issue is the disturbing manner in which it appears many Byzantine Catholics choose to approach ecumenism. Namely, it appears that there are only some, select non-Catholics who are worthy of seriously pursuing reunion with, while certain key, immutable aspects of the faith, ones that seem to tend not to be as prominent within the scope of Byzantine Catholic life, can be tampered with, spin, spun, and transformed into ecclesiastical bargaining chips.
On the other hand, there appear to be other non-Catholics, ranging from Protestants, to Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the various 1st millenium 'heretics' who don't appear to be worth the time of day, and that any thought of even raising a question about a semi-colon in 1st millenium teaching to further reunion efforts is unthinkable.
I think Catholicism calls for far more thoughtfulness and balance than this. And I think all periods that have promulgated immutable Catholic teaching deserve equal respect, and that the holy pontiffs who presided during the 1054-1950 period are deserving of more than implications that they processed to the John Williams theme song of 'The Empire Strikes Back'.
Best to all, Robster
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Robster,
I think your point is fair. I would add that it does seem at times that there is too much vagueness and equivocation on the Catholic side in ecumenical talks, at least, vagueness and equivocation by the theological representatives in talks. I don't think that the CDF is vague or equivocal.
I think we must see that each Church claims that it is the true Church of Christ and yet only one Church is correct. However it may be that, from the Roman Catholic point of view, Orthodox Christians participate (imperfectly) in the reality of the Church; we must still recognize that Rome is claiming that the Church of Christ, in the most true and full sense, is that Church (or Churches) under the authority of the Pope. And from the Orthodox side, we must state clearly that any Church that is not in communion with us and does not share our faith fully, is not the true Church of Christ. This we must say while recognizing elements of truth and sanctification that exist in the Roman Catholic Church and in other non-Orthodox communions.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Joe, I think we must see that each Church claims that it is the true Church of Christ and yet only one Church is correct. With due respect, I think this "dilemma" is a false one. The exchange of letters between Metropolitan Damaskinos and Cardinal Ratzinger (old friends from before VCII) after the issuance of Dominus Jesus in 2000 addresses, in part, why it is false. The logic should be: "each church believes itself to be the one holy catholic and apostolic church". Both are right. But, they are not in full communion with each other. Why NOT? As they each expressed the question they first asked each other pre-VCII: We usually ask "Should we be in full communion with each other?" What we should be asking is: "Given the prayer of Christ, whose Church it is, on what (theological) basis do we justify denying fully communion with each other?" Best, Michael P.S. I don't know if the exchange is online, the book is listed here: Joseph Ratzinger, "Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith" [ ignatius.com]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Joe, I think we must see that each Church claims that it is the true Church of Christ and yet only one Church is correct. With due respect, I think this "dilemma" is a false one. The exchange of letters between Metropolitan Damaskinos and Cardinal Ratzinger (old friends from before VCII) after the issuance of Dominus Jesus in 2000 addresses, in part, why it is false. The logic should be: "each church believes itself to be the one holy catholic and apostolic church". Both are right. But, they are not in full communion with each other. Why NOT? As they each expressed the question they first asked each other pre-VCII: We usually ask "Should we be in full communion with each other?" What we should be asking is: "Given the prayer of Christ, whose Church it is, on what (theological) basis do we justify denying fully communion with each other?" Best, Michael P.S. I don't know if the exchange is online, the book is listed here: Joseph Ratzinger, "Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith" [ ignatius.com] But the CDF is clear that the true Church "subsists" in the Catholic Church (governed by the successor of St. Peter) and that the Orthodox Churches are in imperfect communion with the Church (hence they are defective). Joe
|
|
|
|
|