PDA

View Full Version : What Does This Mean?


DivineFiliation
17th February 2006, 04:52 PM
Hello my Orthodox friends. Someone posted this in OBOB and I'm at a loss as to what this guy is saying.

Russian Orthodox bishop's declaration


Metropolitan sets out papal primacy terms. A SENIOR Russian Orthodox metropolitan has said Orthodox leaders could accept the Pope’s primacy, if it recognises the “full plentitude” of local Churches.
“The question of primacy concerns the doctrine of faith – it isn’t just a question of human organisation, and the problem lies precisely here,” said Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, president of the theological commission of the Russian Church’s governing Holy Synod. “The apostolic canons make clear that the primacy was an essential tenet, along with synodality, in the Church’s nature. In reality, however, one can’t repropose issues like these without taking account of how they’ve been applied historically. It isn’t a question of some pre-existing, abstract, atemporal situation.”
The metropolitan told Italy’s 30 Giorni Catholic monthly magazine that the exercise of papal primacy should “support the life and growth of Churches at all levels, and not pose an obstacle”. He added that Rome had made subjection to papal jurisdiction a requirement for all “genuine bishops”, and should recognise instead that bishops possessed “equal dignity” deriving from the Holy Spirit.
“The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of sacraments – wherever it’s celebrated by a legitimately consecrated priest, the Church is present and it’s possible to live the fullness of the church experience,” Metropolitan Filaret continued. “No primacy can be exercised at the expense of this catholic fullness of the local Church. Yet in the Catholic Church, the Pope projects his ecclesiastical power over the whole earth. This complicates relations with Orthodox sister Churches.” Catholic-Orthodox ties have long been tense over accusations of Catholic “'proselytism” in traditionally Orthodox areas of Eastern Europe, as well as over the post-Communist revival of Greek Catholic communities who combine the Eastern liturgy with loyalty to Rome. However, theologians from both Churches pledged to reconsider divisive issues at mid-December Rome talks co-chaired by Cardinal Walter Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizoulias. Papal primacy is expected to dominate the first meeting for six years of an International Commission for Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue, which is to be hosted in Belgrade next September by the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Jonathan Luxmoore, Warsaw

(From the online Tablet).


*** :confused: can someone please break this down into layman's terms? I'm a midwesterner. lol :D

choirfiend
17th February 2006, 05:32 PM
It's saying, I think, that Papal primacy wasof course accepted by the Orthodox when the Bishop of Rome was part of the Church. It's saying that Orthodox could possibly give Rome the primacy of honor it once had, as part of an equal group of bishops, none of whom is infalliable and none of whom is supreme over the others.

It's saying that Papal primacy has become Papal Supremacy for the RCC, and that the Orthodox cannot accept that. It's saying that the Pope sees his jurisdiction as the whole world--including places where there are legitimately consecrated bishops and priests serving (the Orthodox) in Orthodox lands, and that "sheep stealing" as it is so termed, is an issue of contention between the RCC and the EO right now.

Rilian
17th February 2006, 07:20 PM
I’ve read the interview with Metropolitan Philaret in 30 Days and I think he is really making two key points:

- Bishops and patriarchs derive their authority from their own patriarchal sees and from their own apostolic links. The power to bind and loose promised by Christ to all the apostles is thus passed down this way. Apostolic charism therefore can be seen properly as coming from within, and not from without.

- He is also saying in my estimation there are two levels of wholeness. The church is whole when all of the bishops are in communion with each other, but the church is also whole in its entirety where the Eucharist is present. Both these dimensions are the “kata” and “holos” that the word catholic really means.

This is of course all completely at odds with the model of church governance that evolved in the western church, with the western patriarch as both bishop and monarch. Ultimately Roman supremacy means all other bishops are valid not by nature of their own apostolic succession, but by nature of being in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The church in this model is not synodal, but pyramidal.

What Metropolitan Philaret is saying may sound to some as a minor change, but really for the western church to accept what he is saying they would effectively have to renounce their own ecclesiology (i.e. model of church governance).

DivineFiliation
20th February 2006, 10:58 AM
thanks friends. That really helps me out.