|
0 members (),
253
guests, and
56
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,467
Posts417,239
Members6,106
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Nevertheless, the theological opinions promoted by the later Orthodox synods will never be acceptable to the Western Churches, and so their teachings must be seen as nothing more than theologoumena Which means that for Orthodoxy, the authority of the Pope should still at least be an open question, since it was at least never condemned by anyone prior to the Great Schism. So let the dialogue continue! Precisely. Thus, as I see it, any agreement in connection with the doctrine of primacy must be placed within the context of the faith of the first millennium. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Rather than swapping cross-denominational polemics, it would be far more helpful to find a manageable number of good historians, both Orthodox and Catholic, to produce a joint study of, for example, the Papacy. Authentic scholarship is not confessional.
Fr. Serge I agree. I would love to see a major study of the doctrine of primacy in which Eastern and Western scholars cooperate in order to advance ecumenical dialogue. That said, there are several good books on this topic presently available: "The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue," published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, contains some good scholarly articles on the doctrine of primacy. Moreover, Fr. Garuti's book, which I have mentioned a few times already, is well worth reading, even though I must admit that I do not agree with every thing he has to say about the papacy. Another helpful book is called "Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present," written by Klaus Schatz, which gives a fairly balanced treatment of the history of the topic, and -- of course -- I am sure that there are other studies that could be recommended. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Todd, with all due respect, I think the overeagerness of folks to interpolate into every statement of omission or ambiguity of the past 45 years has led to quite a bit of mischief that cannot ultimately hold up under scrutiny.
As for commissions, as I understand it, they have no binding authority in and of themselves. Given the incessant mischief they have been causing, from dual coventant theology with Judaism, I hope, trust, and, expect the magisterium to continue to put the appropriate kabosh on all dogmatic flights of fancy such as the fact that there has been no ecumenical council since Niceae II.
Best,
Robster The Catholic participants at the international commission (including the co-chairman Cardinal Kasper) have been appointed by Rome. In other words, they officially represent the Roman Magisterium in the talks, which are meant to restore communion between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Which means that for Orthodoxy, the authority of the Pope should still at least be an open question, since it was at least never condemned by anyone prior to the Great Schism. So let the dialogue continue! A point of clarification: If by the word "open" you mean open to some kind of theory of progressive doctrinal development, that would no doubt be unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. The faith of the Church is -- after all -- "once delivered to the saints," and so doctrine does not develop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
To Father Serge's point, I think finding a more balanced historical perspective is essential, avoiding such extremes such as "Who needs Rome?" on one end of the continuum and "Papo-caesarism" on the other. I did enjoy just finishing both J.M. Hussey's The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire and Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP's Rome and the Eastern Churches. I feel inspired to continue reading a more thorough account of St. Photius, and would love to know how I can locate a copy of Fr. Francis Dvornik's The Photian Schism: History and Legend. Does anyone know? Personally, I thought reading Michael Whelton's first book was a complete waste of my time. It remains to be seen if he has contributed anything substantive or new to the dialogue with his latest work, instead of rehashing old polemics. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Which means that for Orthodoxy, the authority of the Pope should still at least be an open question, since it was at least never condemned by anyone prior to the Great Schism. So let the dialogue continue! A point of clarification: If by the word "open" you mean open to some kind of theory of progressive doctrinal development, that would no doubt be unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. The faith of the Church is -- after all -- "once delivered to the saints," and so doctrine does not develop. Per chance it could be understood to be better understood?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Interestingly, small excerpts of the working document of the official Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, which was discussed last year in Belgrade, have been released (due to an objection made by the Russian delegation), and the document is quoted as saying that: after the schism "an Ecumenical Council in the strong sense became impossible," but "both Churches continued to hold general councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople" [The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church, paragraph 45].
Apparently Rome is willing to take a new constructive position on this issue, while some members of the lay faithful in communion with Rome are not. As interesting as the divide between hierarchs seeking at least reproachment through dialgoue and monastic and laity in the East.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 63 |
Can one believe that the Pope is first among equals and be in good standing in an Eastern Catholic Church or was Bishop Zoghby an exception?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Can one believe that the Pope is first among equals and be in good standing in an Eastern Catholic Church or was Bishop Zoghby an exception? Define "first among equals."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 63 |
Can one believe that the Pope is first among equals and be in good standing in an Eastern Catholic Church or was Bishop Zoghby an exception? Define "first among equals." The way Bishop Zoghby would define it: 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: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Which means that for Orthodoxy, the authority of the Pope should still at least be an open question, since it was at least never condemned by anyone prior to the Great Schism. So let the dialogue continue! A point of clarification: If by the word "open" you mean open to some kind of theory of progressive doctrinal development, that would no doubt be unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. The faith of the Church is -- after all -- "once delivered to the saints," and so doctrine does not develop. Per chance it could be understood to be better understood? No. The doctrines of the faith are experiential in nature, and so they cannot be reduced to intellectual concepts open to logical development. Moreover, it is the height of hubris to assert that members of the Church today understand the faith better than the Apostles, who were chosen personally by Christ the Lord Himself, and who form the very foundation of the Church. Finally, the fact that theological language can change in order to respond to heresy does not mean that the immutable doctrines of the faith are "developing," nor do new linguistic formulas imply that our understanding of the faith is somehow more profound than the understanding of the faith experienced and lived by the Apostles. In other words, the experience of God received in the liturgy today is identical to the experience of God given to the Apostles. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The way Bishop Zoghby would define it:
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. I think it is perfectly acceptable for an Eastern Catholic to hold this position. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
The way Bishop Zoghby would define it:
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. I think it is perfectly acceptable for an Eastern Catholic to hold this position. God bless, Todd Quite frankly, a number of us EC's do!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 63 |
The way Bishop Zoghby would define it:
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. I think it is perfectly acceptable for an Eastern Catholic to hold this position. God bless, Todd Quite frankly, a number of us EC's do! I'm glad that it's considered a valid position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Can one believe that the Pope is first among equals and be in good standing in an Eastern Catholic Church or was Bishop Zoghby an exception? Define "first among equals." The way Bishop Zoghby would define it: 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. Even that is vague, however. Even ultramontanists can show evidence of their view of the Papacy from the Eastern Fathers of the first millennium. That statement in itself is a non-starter without clarification. Both East and West claim the Eastern Fathers of the first millenium, after all, and I know from personal experience how much this nuance can affect the fundamental belief. Our Melkite Eparch of the U.S., Sayedna Cyril Bustros, unhesitatingly recommends Sayedna Zoghby's work (and was his closest associate in his work on Eastern Orthodox-Eastern Catholic unity), but also says that the Eastern Orthodox do not uphold the fullness of the first millenium Eastern Tradition, though neither do the Eastern Catholics according to him. These are things that must be kept in mind as we have a tendency to toss around slogans and brief statements that actually hold a huge depth of nuance and history. Peace and God bless!
Last edited by Ghosty; 08/11/07 04:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
