www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ratzinger Proposal: (a clarification by... Ratzinger)

ByzBob,

This is more encouraging but not an official document. When Rome agrees to such, that will be news indeed!

I wonder how Raymond Arroyo will handle that on EWTN?

Dave,

I actually think you hit the nail on the head as to why this isn't "official" yet. It is because of the scandal that it will cause. Which is why they are incrementally moving away from the clear implications of the teaching rater than just abandoning it. It is also why we get, from time to time, these sorts of things from the Vatican. They must been seen to be upholding the doctrine, at least in theory, or risk a sizeable backlash.
That is why I say we bound to follow the truth, rather than trying to placate the whims of the Latin Church.

Bob

You would think so, but the bureaucrats in the Roman Curia seem to say one thing in their dialogue with the Orthodox and something altogether different when talking to members of their own communion. I just hope that this double speak is not intentional.

Trained up as one by the Jebbies, but just couldn't hold my tongue enough to make it in the world of striped pants. Sort of fell into theology late in life--it's not that different from military history.


It says that the separation of East and West, "rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term". Draw your own conclusions, but in the world of Vatican-speak that's an earth-shattering statement. If it was impossible to hold ecumenical councils in the "strict sense of the term", then those later councils called "ecumenical" are not, strictly speaking, "ecumenical".

And, if you look above that particular statement, you will see that the Ravenna Document also says that an ecumenical council is only truly ecumenical when it is received by all--not because of any a priori criteria. If the Ravenna Docment is not a repudiation of the commonly-held Catholic definition of an ecumenical council, then nothing is.

It's encouraging but does not signal a change has happened. If it's that crystal clear, then I would think it would have been noticed by many more than just a few Eastern Catholics here on the Byzantine Forum. The document does clearly say that Rome has viewed these latter Councils as ecumenical. The past tense "were regarded as ecumenical" could be explained by the past tense "held in the West," being agreement in verb tense.

Also, the Vatican website states about the Ravenna document:


Stuart, I would like to see our Churches find a way to resolve this issue. But, it's not been solved. Rome has retained its position and there is no official Catholic Church document that indicates otherwise. Nor did Pope Benedict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) propose that the West should not expect more than what the East lived and believed in the first Millennium. Ratzinger clarified what he meant by that often misquoted statement as was cited at the beginning of the thread.

Sadly, the Eastern and Western continents are still separated by a great distance.

First of all, most Latin Catholics (and most Orthodox) pay no attention to the ecumenical dialogue. That includes most bishops and theologians. They just don't care, so they don't follow along.

But among those who do care, the Ravenna statement was like a thunderclap. And that goes for the Orthodox who bother to follow along. If you listened to the presentations from Orientale Lumen this year, you will see just how important the speakers considered the Ravenna Statement to be. And, of course, the North American Consultation is several years (maybe a decade or more) ahead of the international dialogue.


Some people are not so sad. And that is the problem.

I don't think that follows, and I think it is an inaccurate stating of the pre-VI position. I think Rome has always recognised the Orthodox Churches as true Churches (defined as having real clergy and real scaraments), by, for example, not re-ordaining Orthodox clergy, etc.

Precisely, it isn't. It is leaving room for dialogue with the Orthodox (under the assumption that the Orthodox would have a problem with stating that VI etc were ecumenical), whilst not actually repudiating anything.

If that were all the change you suggest, uniatism would have been impossible.

This is one of the problems with being nice. People get confused about what you really think. Catholic bishops won't refer to Protestrants as heretics anymore either. Will you now suggest that Rome regards Lutheranism as orthodox?

I find the statements you have made in this thread to be very, truthful and made with clarity. "Orthodox in communion with Rome" will no more serve the unity that we deeply desire anymore than "Uniatism" has. Both are confusing to Catholic and Orthodox alike. Your forthrightness is a much better balm.

Given Rome's sacramental theology they undoubedtly saw the Orthodox as possesing true sacraments, yet they would have saw them as schismatic sects rather than true particular churches.

I'm not sure what you mean, but Uniatism has been renounced by Rome in the Balamand statement, as has proselytizing the Orthodox -- a strange phenomenon indeed if "nothing has been repudiated," as some suggest. Indeed, if Rome is just playing nice with the Orthodox and it is really is necessary to accept the post-schism councils as ecumenical then Rome is being derelict in its duty to promote them as such and to insist on the conversion of the Orthodox to Catholicism. Yet this is not what we see, rather we see the opposite. I'll leave that for you to determine why.

See, there you go again mixing up doctrine and discipline, or doctrine and policy, as if they were all of a part.

What I mean that you're not sure about is, that if Rome has only recently discovered that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, none would have been accepted wholesale into communion. The historical reality of uniatism demonstrates that the change you've identified isn't one.

As for your position that the Church of Rome is derelict in her duties, well, yeah. Pick your topic; I guess that's plain as day.

If a policy undermines a doctrine it has the same effect has repudiating the doctrine. Yet, all Rome seemingly needs to do is come up with cool catch phrases like "hermeneutic of continuity," and people believe nothing has changed. You are confusing sacramental theology with ecclesiastical teaching. The reason Rome accepted Uniatism to begin with was because, at the time, she thought it was necessary for salvation to be a card carrying Catholic. Today not so much.

Could you define Uniatism for me please.