|
2 members (Hutsul, 1 invisible),
352
guests, and
90
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
This is not new. The same sentiments -collaboration in bringing relief to the needy and collaboration in preserving Christian values as the basis of European civilisation- have been presented in statements by the Russian Orthodox Church to the Church of Rome since only a few days after Pope Benedict's installation. What many of us are waiting to see, four years later, is in what practical ways this proposed collaboration will be expressed? This is true. There is talk of collaboration in the world, mostly to overcome secularism. There is no serious talk, on the part of Eastern Orthodox hierarchs, about an immediate re-establishing full communion. With that being said, I'd like to see it happen soon. But, this will only happen in God's good time, when the Holy Spirit deems that it is "the fullness of time". As to the proposed collaboration, my sense is that it will have to be largely the work of committed laity. Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
What will be telling is the next meeting of the Commission where the Russian Orthodox Church will participate. They have mentioned that they will bring 2 delegates from each of the 7 autonomous Churches under Moscow; it was the presence of delegates from an autonomous Constantinopolitan Church (Estonia) which caused the Russian refusal to participate in 2007. The International Commission is supposed to be only delegates from autocephalous Orthodox Churches, matched by a corresponding number of Catholic delegates. Father, weren't the Estonians "observers," and not "delegates?" And wouldn't the same be true for any others that Moscow might bring in the future? The word could and and would makes the difference, Frankly I think pink pigs will fly before we see this one happen but then that is my human reaction. I do hope and pray that it works out. Getting a pig to fly isn't that hard--it's merely a matter of thrust.  More seriously, how likely did the implosion of the UFFR (Union of Fewer & Fewer Republics) look during the 1970's? (There were a handful that did conceive of it, and this was indeed part of the reason [and rarely spoken] for the Reagan arms buildup--causing the economic collapse). hawk, hopefully
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
[quote=Hieromonk Ambrose]They have mentioned that they will bring 2 delegates from each of the 7 autonomous Churches under Moscow[/quote]
7 autonomous churches? Could someone enumerate for me which churches these are? All I know about are the Churches of Ukraine, Japan, and China... and I'm pretty sure the Chinese Orthodox Church is still not in a state to be sending delegates anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Father, weren't the Estonians "observers," and not "delegates?" And wouldn't the same be true for any others that Moscow might bring in the future? It would make no difference either way since the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church is considered uncanonical by Moscow. "Vladyki Hilarion laid emphasis on the fact that the MP cannot participate in a dialogue together with representatives of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, for to do so would deviate from a decision of the Bishops’ Council of 2000." http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008...rthodox-anglican-dialogue-is-impossible/In a similar vein, the Patriarch of Constantinople has always blocked the presence of OCA delegates to such gatherings. Under Canon 28 of Chalcedon the Patriarch is considered Patriarch of the Barbarians and he does not recognise the OCA's autocephaly in what he claims as a barbarian land under his authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,675 Likes: 7 |
Aside from the usual dogmatic disagreements, the Vatican's novel ecclesiology of "subsistence," which allows heretics to possess apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, is nonsensical from an Orthodox standpoint. How is it nonsensical when the majority of Orthodox theologians now state that the Oriental Orthodox are just as Orthodox as the Eastern Orthodox? What of the Old Believers who were for decades deemed heretics, now it is stated that they were never outside Orthodoxy? What of the economia that allowed the Orthodox to receive Eucharist in Anglican Churches when there were no Orthodox Churches in the area - wasn't this some acknowledgment of some grace from Anglican Eucharist (at least at the time)? I cannot conceive that he means that we should be united but without enjoying full communion.
Orthodoxy knows of no unity without communion and it has no concept of partial communion. This would simply not chime with the teaching of the Eucharist as creating the unity of the Church. This is not so in practice - again the cases of the Oriental Orthodox come to mind, as do economia granted in troublesome areas like the MidEast.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
What of the economia that allowed the Orthodox to receive Eucharist in Anglican Churches when there were no Orthodox Churches in the area - wasn't this some acknowledgment of some grace from Anglican Eucharist (at least at the time)? I imagine that this was the most extraordinary use of "economia" in history. In England at a time when there were almost no Orthodox churches in the country it was permitted to resort to the Anglicans for communion. It was understood that what the Orthodox received was the Body and Blood of Christ, while the Anglican vicar and his flock (whether High or Low Church) received only bread and wine. An old edition of Eastern Churches Quarterly has an article and I'll see if I can locate it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept. This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome. I think this is the crux of the problem. Was St. Peter the coryphaeus of the Apostles, as the very great majority of early Fathers testify? Was this role passed down in the Apostolic Succession? Does not Apostolic Succession have a theological basis? I feel the best way to overcome this problem is to get rid of the idea and language of universal jurisdiction and replace it with the idea and language of universal solicitude or care. The idea of "jurisdiction" was invented by the Church in the 4th century anyway. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
Aside from the usual dogmatic disagreements, the Vatican's novel ecclesiology of "subsistence," which allows heretics to possess apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, is nonsensical from an Orthodox standpoint. How is it nonsensical when the majority of Orthodox theologians now state that the Oriental Orthodox are just as Orthodox as the Eastern Orthodox? First of all, "this can't be wrong, you do it too" is never a very sound argument. Certain high-profile academic theologians believe that the non-Chalcedonians are orthodox, but this has never been a gauge of what the Church teaches- throughout the Church's history you will always find big names supporting erroneous ideas. There remain many more monastics who believe otherwise, not to mention the holy Fathers of the Church. If in fact the non-Chalcedonian theology (and it may not be possible to speak of a unified theology for them) is subject to an orthodox interpretation, they are at the very least schismatics and therefore cannot be "as Orthodox as the Eastern Orthodox". What of the Old Believers who were for decades deemed heretics, now it is stated that they were never outside Orthodoxy? Stated by whom? Yes, everyone agrees that their beliefs were Orthodox, at least those who ended up returning to the Church (some Old Believer sects have weird ideas), but they were in fact in schism from the Church. Of course, part of the blame lies with the Nikonian reformers and their unwillingness to compromise- nevertheless, the Old Believers chose to disobey the hierarchy over a non-essential, non-doctrinal issue. I cannot conceive that he means that we should be united but without enjoying full communion.
Orthodoxy knows of no unity without communion and it has no concept of partial communion. This would simply not chime with the teaching of the Eucharist as creating the unity of the Church. This is not so in practice - again the cases of the Oriental Orthodox come to mind, as do economia granted in troublesome areas like the MidEast. [/quote] The practice of the Antiochian patriarchate is aberrant but they have not gone so far as to declare that they are in communion with the non-Chalcedonians. Acts of economia are by definition departures from the rule and in such cases all sacramental grace still comes from the Orthodox Church, as when, sometimes, Christians baptized in heterodox sects are received by chrismation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
I feel the best way to overcome this problem is to get rid of the idea and language of universal jurisdiction and replace it with the idea and language of universal solicitude or care. I've had a similar appraisal for some time. Recently I had occasion to comment on the biblical sense of justice/righteousness. I wrote (by way of background): Just and righteous are the same concept. The sense of just comes through the Latin where iustus/justus translates the Greek dikaios and the Hebrew tsadik. See e.g. Psalm 91(92):13:
RSV Psalm 92:12 The righteous flourish like the palm tree, and grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
NAB Psalm 92:13 The just shall flourish like the palm tree, shall grow like a cedar of Lebanon.
VUL Psalm 91:13 iustus ut palma florebit ut cedrus Libani multiplicabitur
The Protestant "Justification by faith" is St. Paul's very Hebrew sense of righteousness (tsadaka) distorted, especially in its forensic/legal interpretation. There's no righteousification so we always hear for that concept justification -- could say "Made-right by faith." Translations seem to uses either, as in the Psalm above, or what must fit in English, e.g. (where there's no righteous-type-word in English):
RSV Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
NAB Romans 3:28 For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Here as in the Psalm verse, the analogous forms: Latin, iustificari; Greek, dikaiousthai.
The concept is based on the Hebrew sense of tsadaka. That is found in the very Semitic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and only his version, at the baptism of Jesus,
RSV Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.
VUL Matthew 3:15 respondens autem Iesus dixit ei sine modo sic enim decet nos implere omnem iustitiam tunc dimisit eum
DRA Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him
The Greek is dikaiosunēn.
And the beatitudes,
RSV Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
VUL Matthew 5:10 beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum
DRA Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
The Greek is dikaiosunēs.
DRA=The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. And then (slightly edited) and getting closer to the point: I have come to believe that to read St. Paul correctly, one must read him as a Jew (1st c., Pharissee); and that as a Jew who did not reject Judaism but who saw and went beyond it (and in an analogous way, Jesus at His baptism to John in Matthew's Gospel.) The concept of righteousness (tsadaka) in Judaism was paramount and was achievable by following the law (Torah). It probably was to the Jew/Judaism what theosis is to us.
Justice and righteousness in colloquial English have some bad connotations that may influence us. Justice seems legalistic and is often suspect: it may be the law (justice) but that doesn't mean it is right. It can even convey trying to legitimize (another law/lex word) what is wrong as in he is always trying to justify himself. But, there are those who are self-righteous.
Maybe righteous/righteousness has less baggage and thereby better conveys a good and high status: We don't have a Department of Righteousness or a righteousness system as negative images. I stopped short there but considered writing this conclusion in the infallibility thread. But since it came up here: Consider the current meaning of jurisdiction and its etymology: * Etymology: Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French jurisdiction, from Latin jurisdiction-, jurisdictio, from juris + diction-, dictio act of saying — more at diction
* Date: 14th century
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
synonyms see power [ merriam-webster.com] There's the baggage: power, authority, control, territory. But the word juris-diction basically means saying/speaking the law; but also speaking righteousness, saying what is right. Consider papal jurisdiction / infallibility in that light: the one who speaks, and is recognized as doing so universally for the Church, what is right; the univocal and unequivocal voice of the Truth (on faith and morals).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
In any discussion of what Paul meant by "justification", it is absolutely essential to read the works of the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright, particularly his monumental New Testament and the People of God, as well as his various books on St. Paul. Needless to say, the Western and particularly Protestant understanding of the concept has strayed pretty far from what the Pharisee of Tarsus was trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
In any discussion of what Paul meant by "justification", it is absolutely essential to read the works of the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright, particularly his monumental New Testament and the People of God, as well as his various books on St. Paul. Needless to say, the Western and particularly Protestant understanding of the concept has strayed pretty far from what the Pharisee of Tarsus was trying to say. Indeed, Wright says they (Protestants) got it wrong. The Southern Baptists ( link [ sbts.edu] ) recently took him to task about his defection from the foundational principle of Protestantism. I can't figure how a "sola scriptura" movement sold "justification by faith alone" when Paul says: RSV Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. There's that word, "law" (Torah?). And the only place where "alone" and "faith" occur together in scripture is: RSV James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. It's usually argued that Paul and James use the same words with different meanings, but I think they're complementary: Paul: We are justified by faith James: but not by faith alone. James: We are justified by works, Paul: but not by works of the Law "Western" is pretty broad. In my opinion, the Catholic Church got it right, succinct, and beautifully said at Trent: In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man [homo] is born a son [filius] of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons [filiorum] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (for references see previous post ) But we digress...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=26932 The above article is an informative update to this thread. Concerning the meeting between Archbishop Hilarion and Cardinal Kaspar... But there are numerous "signs" that the meeting was remarkably harmonious. Now, this is news! It would be funny if it weren't such a serious subject. The article may suggest reunion, but a more realistic outcome (barring Divine intervention) is potential cooperation. The article suggests that the Church needs a powerful ally to help it to fend off attackers (hmmm...sounds like the Catholic Church's situation in the USA). One key person Archbishop Hilarion met with was Cardinal Walter Kasper. On Sept. 17, the cardinal told Vatican Radio that he and Archbishop Hilarion had a "very calm conversation."
Cardinal Kasper also revealed something astonishing: that he had suggested to the archbishop that the Orthodox Churches form some kind of "bishops' conference at the European level" that would constitute a "direct partner of cooperation" in future meetings.
This would be a revolutionary step in the organization of the Orthodox Churches.
Papal-Patriarch encounter?
Cardinal Kasper said a Pope-Patriarch meeting was not on the immediate agenda, and would probably not take place in Moscow or Rome, but in some "neutral" place (Hungary, Austria and Belarus are possibilities).
Archbishop Hilarion himself revealed much about how his Rome visit was proceeding when he met on the evening of Sept. 17 (before his meeting with the Pope) with the Community of Sant'Egidio, an Italian Catholic group known for its work with the poor in Rome.
"We live in a de-Christianized world, in a time that some define -- mistakenly -- as post-Christian," Archbishop Hilarion said. "Contemporary society, with its practical materialism and moral relativism, is a challenge to us all. The future of humanity depends on our response… More than ever before, we Christians must stand together." (emphasis mine -pb)
A report from Interfax, the news service of the Moscow Patriarchate, on Sept. 18 revealed that Archbishop Hilarion spoke to the Pope about "cooperation between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches in the area of moral values and of culture" -- in particular during the "Days of Russian Spiritual Culture," a type of exhibit with lectures scheduled for spring 2010 in Rome. (One might imagine that the Pope himself could attend such an exhibition). One of the many reasons for the Great Schism was the Failure of Rome to come to the rescue of Constantinople from the Turks. Could re-union come through long delayed aid to, not the "Second Rome" but to the "Third Rome"? Only God knows. Fr Deacon Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 157
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 157 |
The note does not indicate rejection or even qualification, but merely the status of the document. Indeed. Its status is that it is hanging in limbo. After two years of studying it Rome has not ratified it. The problem lies with some of its statements on ecclesiology and papal primacy. Why would you expect some kind of official ratification of the Ravenna document? That is not generally how Rome handles ecumenical documents of this kind. Has the CDF raised questions about it or advanced objections to it? If yes, what precisely were they?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
The note does not indicate rejection or even qualification, but merely the status of the document. Indeed. Its status is that it is hanging in limbo. After two years of studying it Rome has not ratified it. The problem lies with some of its statements on ecclesiology and papal primacy. Why would you expect some kind of official ratification of the Ravenna document? That is not generally how Rome handles ecumenical documents of this kind. Has the CDF raised questions about it or advanced objections to it? If yes, what precisely were they? At the time of its publication there were demurrals from Rome that its ecclesiology was unacceptable. But I have not kept the news clippings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
At the time of its publication there were demurrals from Rome that its ecclesiology was unacceptable. But I have not kept the news clippings. I've looked and looked, and can find nothing, not even in the archives of Osservatore Romano.
|
|
|
|
|
