www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox and Catholic Theologians Discuss Papal Ministry

I understand the extremely 'cautious' feelings of our Orthdox brethren towards the Papacy. There is no need to experience once again the ostracism, the neglect, and the alienation that the east received from the Rome over the centuries. There is no need to reccount the sack of Byzantium under the very hands of the Roman crusaders. These were understably painful experiences with Rome.

But I guess we all have to look beyond the horizon where "we" all want to get to. Do we or do we not want the union between east & west??? Let me put it in another way: "Does everyone in this thread agree that he/she want to see the full communion between east & west during his/her lifetime???" I really am not soliciting for any opinion but I would personally underline that this is one of my dream that I want to see done in my own life time.

Well, if Rome has been aloof and has not stoop down to call for unity, if Rome has not budge a finger on this matter --- then we can all say Rome is not interested. But what if she did put down her hand and it is taken as a political move instead of a spiritual one?

I am not encouraging that both sides take short cuts and sweep the mess under the carpet. Yes we have all the face the issues. But let us not dwell on the past, on the hurts and the pains. Let us rather see how we can put things back in order, repair the damage (if possible) and mend our ways.

Everyone wants to chip-in his/her own bit of condition. Well, I guess they have all been laid on table including the self-governance of each sui juris Church by each respective Patriarch. If this is the case what do we do with the Petrine Ministry??? Do we leave this to the Latins alone? I fully agree that the Church of the first 500 was a great model of papal ministry, but how do we start to get great patrimony back in our hands? I was touched to read last year how Anthony Dragani described the papacy that "when fully appreciated, is a gift, a grace to the Church."

Again, it is my dream to see this in my lifetime. I sincerely believe it is the dream of the majority of those in this forum & thread (if not all). But I am sure - the current patriarch of Rome would also be happy once he sees this dream realized before he finally "close his eyes". And you bet, no less than Christ himself will be very happy to see this unity as he prayed in the garden for his followers. Let us all pray for that both sides can face all the issues soon and have them resolved.

Pray for me, a sinner!
Antonio

Lots of rhetoric here and reflection on history but the reality is we do not live in the world of the Roman or Byzantine Empires but in the time of the EU. If former enemies can get together in the EU and in NATO maybe the Churches should follow suit. if the Eucharist is a sign of unity in Faith than maybe its time to demonstrate Faith on the part of the People and be a step ahead of all the bishops, etc.

Bergschlawiner,

That's exactly what is happening, right or wrong. We all have known Orthodox believers who receive in Byzantine Catholic and even Roman Catholic Churches.

As far as the reality of European political unity, I think this will not address the two greatest threats to Orthodoxy in Europe: atheism and protestantism (esp. mormonism and evangelicalism).

Dear Friends,

There have been times in the past when East and West was on the brink of getting back together . . .

The problem here is with ecclesiologies, East and West.

The role of the popes throughout history has never been constant.

The later medieval papacy was like an earthly empire with the pope as a Christian version of Caesar (at which time the popes did accept Caesar's ancient title of "Pontifex Maximus").

In terms of papal jurisdiction, that did not exist in the first millennium of the Church. The Eastern Churches could ask for papal intervention in situations where no one could resolve a problem locally. But those instances were few and far between.

While maintaining its role as the Petrine See, Rome must also realize that there are exaggerated traditions associated with the papacy that are not part of the patrimony of the undivided Church and are all too human - these it must try to play down or else discard, at least with respect to the other Churches of the East.

Western Catholics associate Peter with the Bishop of Rome since Peter founded that Church.

And it was the ONLY Western Church that could claim Apostolic foundation.

But in the East, Peter was "all over the place" at Antioch, at Alexandria (through St Mark) and in many towns and villages.

St Gregory the Great even understood the "Petrine See" as consisting of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all founded by St Peter.

In fact, Rome's primacy in the Church had more to do with the fact of that city's position as capital of the Roman Empire than with Peter himself.

Byzantium followed suit and called itself the "New Rome" claiming apostolic foundation from the brother of St Peter, Andrew, a tradition later claimed by the "Third Rome," Moscow.

But I think the onus is now on Rome to show to the Orthodox what it is prepared to do to restore the unity of the first millennium of the Church once more.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I can sympathize with the eagerness for union between the two churches. "What's the big deal! This separation should have ended hundred of years ago!" Since I have had a broad experience in both churches, I have seen the many places in which Orthodoxy and Catholicism converge. But there is too much blood on both sides, and that blood has congealed into dogmas and intransigent attitudes. Both sides, in their worst forms, think they have nothing to learn from each other. And both do not want to betray the "Faith of our Fathers." It is really sad, because it is, in a sense, a holy blindness.
I like to reflect, for example, on the integrist aspects of both churches. I firmly believe that both Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco are both great saints (or at least very saintly men). All my professors in seminary, including my spiritual director, were formed by this Latin "schismatic" archbishop. I have read the biography of St. John, and also acknowledge that he was a living icon of Christ during his life. But, when they were both alive, they would have hurled anathemas at each other for being schismatic and heretical! I know one ROCOR monk who believes they are somehow compatible, but I am at a loss to explain any of this. If you really want to do an exercise in comparative religion, read the literature of the ROCOR defending the purity of Orthodoxy against ecumenism, and then read the Society of St. Pius X on ecumenism, and you will read the exact same words, with "Orthodoxy" exchanged for "Catholic Tradition", and vice versa.
In terms of union, all I can throw out is that the papacy should be changed back to the way it was exercised in the first 1,000 years. As Patriarch of the West, he should be king and absolute ruler. But the other Patriarchates should be their own "kingdoms", with Rome being a sort of court of appeal. I don't see the Vatican bureaucratic machine calling the shot in any decision of the Eastern Churches. For me, all the theological "differences", not matter how serious they may seem at first, are merely excuses to maintain the tradition and autonomy of a particular church. Any amount of digging in the Patrology of the Church can justify any position (for and against the Papacy, for and against Purgatory, etc.) Orthodoxy is afraid most of all (and rightly, in my opinion) of Papal authority. And even the theological differences reflect this. More often than not, the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that the Orthodox are less specific and precise. A lot of times, there is no "Orthodox" position on something, just a lot of opinions flying around depending on time, who the author has read, where he lived, and, most importantly, how mad he is at the Pope that day! (the Immaculate Conception is a classic example.)
Are the Orthodox afraid of commitment (doctrinal, structural, etc.)? Should they be? (Would Rome ever pull a Novus Ordo on Orthodoxy? Imagine a Vatican Cardinal going to an Orthodox Patriarch
saying: "This Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is so long, and all that talk about sin and repentance.... I've been doing some reading and I have a better idea." GULP!) Can the Latins finally learn to accept the Orthodox East as an equal and not as a "backwards step-sister? I do not know, but I am not optimistic.
I guess one step we can do is to stop beating each other the head with our martyrs and other historical attrocities. Both sides have blood on their hands, and there should be no more arguments as to who has more. God asks us to confess our own sins and failings, and not those of our ancestors! And St. So-and-so who was martyred by the barbaric Latins, and St. So-and-so who was martyred by the schismatics, if they are both in Heaven, would not want to be used as a polemical tank to destroy any talk of unity of the Churches. There is a lot of sifting that must be done here, and above all a lot of prayer.

Yours in Christ,
Arturo

To Alex,

Did you ever get "The New Jerusalem Bible"? I purchased one when you said you would.

I was just wondering how you liked it compared to "The Jerusalem Bible" you said you owned?

Shalom haMashiach Yeshua,

BradM
Hebrew-Roman Catholic who likes Orthodoxy also.

Check out:
Association of Hebrew Catholics:
http://hebrewcatholic.org/index.html

Second Exodus:
http://www.secondexodus.com/

Arturo hypothesized that the Orthodox may be afraid of papal authority. It is correct to say that they are afraid of any papal-like authority. It is not "Rome" per se, but any one authority (besides God) claiming universal jurisdiction and infallible judgement.

For this reason, we (the orthodox) hold all of our bishops, patriarchs (and readers) to be fallible and removable.

This attitude maintains an uncomfortable but necessary tension that forces us to remain vigilant over the faith handed down to us by the apostles. If you will, it is Orthodoxy's "thorn in the side."

In Christ,
Andrew

Wouldn't an ecumenical council be one such authority?

Logos Teen

Good Point!

But how many ecumenical councils were later overturned by subsequent ecumenical councils?

It works in a reverse way from the statement, "Everything that I say is a lie."

The councils say, "Everything that I say is the truth." However, subsequent councils then tell us that NOT everything that was said was the truth.

At that time of the controversy and dispute, when evil-doing men are playing with the faith of the belivers, how does one know what is the truth?

It becomes incumbent upon the faithful to trust holy men and women based upon how they live, not based upon the elloquence of their arguments (Arius). As the Apostle Paul says in the scriptures: you belived in this Gospel because of how we lived while we were among you.

For this reason, the moral integrity of our episcopacy and other clergy, heads of monasteries, etc., who define our doctrinal beliefs is critical to preserving the faith.

Let me offer one rather banal quote from our secular lives to put it into an everyday perspective:

They asked Ross Perot (one-time candidate for US President) if he would accept an adulterer on the Board of Directors of his computer company. He answered, "Why, hell no! If you can't trust a man with his wife, how are you going to trust him with your money?"

If we can't love others whom we can see, how can we love God whom we can't see? Didn't the Lord ask this same question?

So preserving the faith pure and unadulterated is a task handed down (paradosis) to each successive generation of believers.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Brad,

Shlom haMashiach!

Yes, I'm doing some writing for the Hebrew Catholic Association!

(Haven't gotten around to the Bible yet!).

Would you mind sharing how your own Hebrew heritage continues to be part of your Catholic experience?

Ba shana haba bi-Yerushalayim!

Alex

Dear Reader Andrew,

But the Spirit guides the Church into all truth, as you know.

The Ecumenical Council has been the historic "mouthpiece" for the expression of the truth of Christ.

If subsequent Councils altered what those before it pronounced on - that is simply the process of understanding the Apostolic faith that we humans go through with the help of Grace.

Papal authority is ALWAYS dependent on and limited to the Tradition of the Church.

St Robert Bellarmine, for example, outlined instances involving the duty of Catholics to even oppose the Pope should he fall into heresy, try to destroy the Church etc.

Such things make his authority over Catholics null and void.

Ultimately, though, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism believe that the power of bishops is absolute (Florovsky, Schmemann).

The bishop tells us to jump and we say, "Bless, Vladyko - how high?"

Alex

Dear Alex,

Unless the bishop is wrong, in which case we oppose him.

I don't say that we defy his judgement on disciplinary or administrative matters (ikonomia), but when he seriously distorts the faith or engages in personal scandal.

There is a difference, for example, between mismanaging money and stealing it. In the first case we sigh and perhaps contribute less. In the second case we defy his actions and report him to the synod.

[nice to see you around, again )

In Christ,
Andrew

Great! I just received an intro package from David Moss and need to read it. Also I just rec'd the book by Marty Barrack "Second Exodus" which looks real interesting. Will you be writing for the magazine "The Hebrew Catholic"? (If yes that would make me more likely to subscribe for a year or so.)

My dad is Jewish and my mother is Catholic. My father's name is Joseph and my mother's name is Mary! (For real! ) My mother has been the spiritual leader in our family and eventhough my father is non-observant, he seems open to both faiths but has not embraced Jesus Christ yet, please pray for him. I remember when I was around 6 to 8 yrs old when my great grandmother (who was the most devout Jew in the family) was alive we would go to my father's parent's home and during the Hanukah holiday period they would light the candles and read some prayers out of a Siddur. (I really am not too familiar with Jewish traditions and I would like to learn more.) The only time I have seen rabbis have been either at weddings or funerals. Whenever I see a biblical movie about the stories of the Old Testament I feel a link with the Israelites through my father's mother's family and when I read the New Testament or see my favorite movie about Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth", I feel that if I was alive back then I would love to be a disciple of Jesus or if I was on the Sanhedrin I would side with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea and be a follower of Jesus and believe in the gospel and be baptized.

I have been buying some of the videos and tape sets from Bob Fishman, a Jewish convert to Catholicsm, of Saint Joseph Communications and I like to hear him tell Jewish stories and how they relate to and are fulfilled in the Orthodox-Catholic Christian faith.

If there are any books you own specifically related to the Old Testament period and the Israelite experience, culture, and history up until Jesus' arrival, feel free to send me your recommendations. I like to read.

Shalom haMashiach,
(Peace of the Messiah)

BradM

haShanah HaBa, b'yiruslayim

"[We are] coming next year [to be] in Jerusalem!"

P.S. Is this the same as what you quoted above?

Dear Reader Andrew,

I'm like the stray dog that somehow always manages to come home again . . .

As for when a bishop is wrong, it's better than it not be someone like me to decide that!

So it's back to jumping for all of us . . .

Unless Albanians can't jump?

Alex

Dear Brad,

B'shem haAv v'haBen v'Ruach haKodesh, Elochim Echod, Amen!

I guess my Hebrew spelling can use some work, don't you think . . .?

I'm working on an article for that magazine on the Ethiopian tradition and on the idea of a "Particular Hebrew Catholic Church."

St Alexander Men was a Russian Orthodox priest and convert from Judaism who led many Russian Jews to Orthodox Christianity.

He was quite the intellectual and was admired by many - he was axed to death on his way to Church one morning and is widely venerated but not yet officially canonized.

He included a number of Judaic elements in his private chapel, including a menorah.

We Easterners have a seven-branched menorah on the altar - no other candles are allowed. We venerate the four corners of the altar, we solemnize Saturday and have numerous other traditions taken from the Temple of Jerusalem, some of our Eastern Churches more than others.

The Ethiopians actually practice circumcision at the time of baptism and celebrate a private Passover Seder during Holy Week - as do the Assyrians and others.

They also use the ram's horn to announce Easter, Pentecost and other great Christian holidays.

There is no reason why Hebrew Catholics should not have as much of their Hebraic traditions within the context of their Catholic Christian faith as possible!

Alex