Catholic - Orthodoxes Relationships

[a_ntv]

I post here a answer to not break the rules of TAW

I can't find the post anymore, but an OBOBer here said that the Vatican has no problem saying what I said needed to be said (to you still follow) in order for the Papacy to not be an issue.

I am intrigued by this. I knwo that the Vatican has said that the Eastern Churches are to govern themselves and that Rome won't meddle in their affairs. But the point I was making was that Rome would need to admit that their jurisdiction is not and CANNOT ever be Universal.

What Rome is doing right now is ALLOWING the East to mind its business on it's own. To be sure, this is an important step on Rome's part to make it clear that the Eastern Catholic Churches can govern themselves. But the problem is that Rome still sees this as something that they (Rome) can allow... or disallow. As if the Eastern Catholic Churches should be thankful to Rome for allowing them to do so. And I don't mean that Rome is being pompous about it. I am just saying that it is FUNDAMENTALLY a different point of view.

Rome may even say as much as: it doesn't make any sense for us to meddle in the affairs of Churches we have no cultural or little liturgical connection with, so we won't in any way.

But from Rome's point of view this is still the perrogative of Rome alone as head of the Church. The prorities and rights of the EP in the OC can't even be compared to those of the Vatican. The rights of Rome (from the RC POV) are far-reaching, theoretically limitless and INNATE in regards to Jurisdiction and, as of late, morals and dogma.

At this moment, Rome is (wisely) choosing not to exercise many of Her powers. Doing otherwise would be childish and disastrous, similar to the US using a nuclear arm on Cuba to get Castro out of power. Would it work? Possibly... but it would trade in one small problem for a myriad of unimaginable problems. The problem is that from Rome's POV it has the right alone to release that "nuke" (whatever it may be) whereas in the OC, it takes the Church as a whole to do so.

The problem we get into now is when Catholics will say, "the Church has rarely ever made a decision on Dogma or morals without conferring with rest of the Church." And this is most certainly true. But this doesn't HAVE to be true. For any possible reunion, Rome needs to recognize that this is not a right it CAN ever have (or SHOULD HAVE ever had... but we need to leave the past behind us)... even if such an "emergency" were to call for it. the Church ALWAYS MUST make decisions as a Church.

Do you see the distinction? Below is something I have posted a thousand times before. I just think that it does an excellent job at demonstrating the concern at hand. It is from His Beatitude Gregoire III LAMAN, Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melkites, Syria. This is what he said at the X Ordinal General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Watch for bolded parts:



Oh yeah, I got this here of the vatican's website. (just scroll down near the bottom and look for his name)

I'm not saying it's the the nail in the coffin. But I think it shows that Rome needs to be much clearer on the innate and eternal LIMITS of Rome's power in both theory and practice.

Also, I hate to be a stickler, but there's that whole infallibility thing. That is another (although not separate) issue. From the Eastern persepctive any bishop at any time can be very wrong, no matter what "chair" they're sying it from. Rome would have to be included in this. (note the "any time" part). It is not even true that a council is always infallible. Something is PROVEN infallible... not innately infallible. If all the Eastern Patriarchs were to hold a council tomorrow and make some major decisions, sure, the Church would be bound to those for the time... but that doesn't mean they are necessarily INERRANT. Time will tell and if error came out of the council, it will be rooted out sooner or later. Surely, in hubris many (all?) bishops will claim it to be infallible... but confidence in a decision doesn't make it any truer. The Holy Spirit will guide the Church, but the Church can make mistakes and the Holy Spirit will soon enough point them out. Sure, God works through dreams and visions and discernment.. but He also works through the experience of time. The Seven eccumenical council has become so because it has succeeded in showing the truth over time. It has withstood the test of time.

it's a very different point of view and you know, I'm cool with different POVs and different Hierarchical systems and all of that as long as they still expound truth and do not contradict another system in theory or in practice. Your systems of Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibilty both contradict in theory without a doubt and aruguably in practice (especially that of infallibility).

Please take this post in good will. I know you won't agree with me on everything and I would love to hear of any place I misrepresented the fundamental POV of the RCC on the Pope and Hierarchy in general. If you think it would be too controversial for the thread, post a link to a thread in OBOB. Sometimes it helps to speak more freely and not worry about offending others in their home turf.

God bless

John

PS: I might not get back for a while. It's the weekend now and I don't have the net at home.

The pope has on himself a lots of different roles and so of ministries. Catholic theology many time confuse them. Surely to speak of a possible union with EO, all these roles shall be separed to understand them better.

Ad instance the pope take decisions on the roman rite: that is a ministry that is relevant only to the roman rite, and, already, it does not touch the 'unitates'.

There is the ministry of the pope about juristiction (the governance of the church, appointment of bishops...the pratical decision that are taken by a EO synod): the present understarstaning is that ministry is proper of the pope only for the western world.

There is the ministry of the pope about infallibilty: but that is NOT actualy a ministry of the pope, but it is a 'property' of the Church: it is simply a way of the Holy Spirit to express the infallibilty of the whole Church. 'a way', not 'the way': once a time the Spirit helped the Church with Ecumenic Council and with Church Fathers, later with the figure of the pope, always with the collegue of bishops....The point is not the Infallibility of the Church (=the help of the Holy Spirit), but the way to express it.

There is the ministry of the pope as Bishop of Rome, a true Apostolic See: on that there is no way to comprimize: no unity is possible till EOs do not recognize that latin bishops are true bishops, with valid sacraments: not 'by economy', but 'by rightness': that is the more difficoult obstacle nowaday.

There is the ministry of the pope as Head of the Church: that is very difficoult to explain: to understand what it means you shall consider the ministry of the Bizantine Emperor towards the Church: that is something to be better defined.

About the remarks of His Beatitude Gregoire III LAMAN you quoted (that shows how much liberty there is into the CC), please consider that he was complaing that the Vatican is not giving a huge honour to the 'uniates patriarch ministry': that is due to the fact that the Vatican now wants to keep good relationships with EO Churches, and each time the Vatican calls H.B. LAMAN to be a 'patriach', the EO Patriachs feel themself offended. In other words, the 'uniate sistem' is no more the way taken by the Vatican towards the East.

 

[InnerPhyre]

I think John's point is best illustrated by the fact that Roman cardinals decided that Eastern bishops could no longer ordain married men. This is a PRIME example of Rome seeing itself as being in charge and able to grant liberty to the EC's as well as taking it away. Rome should have had no business mucking around with the EC in this regard, but to avoid scandalizing the good Irish Catholics in America who saw married priests as impure and scandalous, they yanked the chain ever tighter. Until Rome admits that it has NO authority to do things like that, the hope of unity is absolutely nill.

 

[a_ntv]

I think John's point is best illustrated by the fact that Roman cardinals decided that Eastern bishops could no longer ordain married men. This is a PRIME example of Rome seeing itself as being in charge and able to grant liberty to the EC's as well as taking it away. Rome should have had no business mucking around with the EC in this regard, but to avoid scandalizing the good Irish Catholics in America who saw married priests as impure and scandalous, they yanked the chain ever tighter. Until Rome admits that it has NO authority to do things like that, the hope of unity is absolutely nill.

By fisrt you are reffering to something happened in the west (US): the west a is a 'territory' of latin rite, and so it is better to avoid scandals.
Anyway, that is not not true for easter 'territories', where there is no danger of scandal

ANYWAY the 'uniate' way is NOT the way foreseen by Rome for a union with EO !!!!

Every attitude taken by Vatican towards the Eastern Orthodox Churches is criticated by EO:
- if the vatican give them too liberty, as calling their bishop 'Patriarch', the EO Churches cry out that they are deeply offended, because only the EO can have true Patriarchs
- if the Vatican give them too few liberties, the EO Churches scream that the Vatican want to submit all Churches as it is doing with the Eastern Catholic Churches

IMO there is a few charity in that.

 

[Teke]

The main thing is that all remain canonical.

His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, today became the first Orthodox Christian to be elected Pope of Rome since the Great Schism of 1054. BARTHOLOMEW was secretly made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003. The rule for qualification states only that the candidate be an unmarried male of the Catholic faith. As the Church of Rome views the Eastern Orthodox as valid members of the Catholic faith, this election, though surprising, is perfectly canonical. BARTHOLOMEW was elected after only one round of ballots was cast.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, today became the first Orthodox Christian to be elected Pope of Rome since the Great Schism of 1054. BARTHOLOMEW was secretly made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003. The rule for qualification states only that the candidate be an unmarried male of the Catholic faith. As the Church of Rome views the Eastern Orthodox as valid members of the Catholic faith, this election, though surprising, is perfectly canonical. BARTHOLOMEW was elected after only one round of ballots was cast.

what? is this for real? I'm confused...

 

[a_ntv]

His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, today became the first Orthodox Christian to be elected Pope of Rome since the Great Schism of 1054. BARTHOLOMEW was secretly made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003. The rule for qualification states only that the candidate be an unmarried male of the Catholic faith. As the Church of Rome views the Eastern Orthodox as valid members of the Catholic faith, this election, though surprising, is perfectly canonical. BARTHOLOMEW was elected after only one round of ballots was cast.

During the conclave for the election of BXVI, in 2005, many italian newspapers wrote that the cardinals had actualy considered to elect an Orthodox as pope.

In fact that could be perfectly canonical: because a bishop of EO (or OO) is considered a bishop also for the CC so not new-ordination ld be necessary.

And the pope becames 'pope' (bishop of rome) in the very instant he accepts saying 'yes' in front the cardinals in the conclave, and there is not need of any act of faith of the pope or of any cerimony.

But IMO the Patriach of Costantinople cannot change see: there is some canon of a early ecumenical council that forbid the moving of bishops between different sees (please correct me): but there are many Orthodox Bishops without a see...

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The pope has on himself a lots of different roles and so of ministries. Catholic theology many time confuse them. Surely to speak of a possible union with EO, all these roles shall be separed to understand them better.

Ad instance the pope take decisions on the roman rite: that is a ministry that is relevant only to the roman rite, and, already, it does not touch the 'unitates'.

There is the ministry of the pope about juristiction (the governance of the church, appointment of bishops...the pratical decision that are taken by a EO synod): the present understarstaning is that ministry is proper of the pope only for the western world.

I honestly did and do understand that the Pope wear's many hats. His rolees are defined and distinct. I should repeat that I (and most Orthodox I have heard from or read about) have no problem at all with the Pope In Rome wearing the hat of Supreme Bishop of the West. Obviously were reunion to be possible, exceptions would have to be made for the eastern orthodox parishes, an exception that would be around for many generations, if not forever. Ans the same would go for those Catholic Parishes in the East (like Romania) that were under the Pope. But Bishop of all the West is fine. It's different in that it is a HUGE jurisdiction but the East needs to remember that the West has evolved differently than the East has and these differences need to be respected. So, I have no problem with this. My problem is with Rome having this idea that Her jurisciction is somehow inherently universal.

There is the ministry of the pope about infallibilty: but that is NOT actualy a ministry of the pope, but it is a 'property' of the Church: it is simply a way of the Holy Spirit to express the infallibilty of the whole Church. 'a way', not 'the way': once a time the Spirit helped the Church with Ecumenic Council and with Church Fathers, later with the figure of the pope, always with the collegue of bishops....The point is not the Infallibility of the Church (=the help of the Holy Spirit), but the way to express it.

So... this is intriguing. The Catholic Church then freely admits that there was a time when Infallibility became uniquely linked to Rome and that this was not always so nor would it have to always be so? That Rome just happened to be in the right place at the right time and so the Holy Spirit saw it fit to express Himself through the Pope and that in a hundred years this might not be true? Is it possible that this responsiblity would pass on to another patriarch like the Patriarch of Moscow? I dont mean these questions to sound snotty or greedy. Rather, I am asking what are seemingly absurd questions so you can futher clarify what it is you mean by all of this. It sounds as if you are saying that the unique tie between Infallibility and the Pope is something that was created (although to be charitable and fair for good reasons from the RCC POV) and is expendible/disposable (not Infallibility Itself but HOW or through WHOM It is expressed).

There is the ministry of the pope as Bishop of Rome, a true Apostolic See: on that there is no way to comprimize: no unity is possible till EOs do not recognize that latin bishops are true bishops, with valid sacraments: not 'by economy', but 'by rightness': that is the more difficoult obstacle nowaday.

I don't think this is really an obstacle or it shouldn't be. If Rome and the East unify it would be understood (and I am sure explicitly stated) that eachothers sacraments are real as are thier respective orders. Whether the East recongizes yours right now or not shoud not be of consequence. I remember that someone explained to me why it made sense that Rome had an official POV on our "validity" and so on. I used to take it as hubris on their part that they even had any business getting into our business. But some explained it to me and I remember thinking "Okay that make sense" and that the reasoning was something specifically Western and that only made sense taking the percieved role of the Patriarch of Rome into account. I also remember thinking that the reasoning would not have worked for the Orthodox Church. My point is that we as a Church have no official pronouncement on the "validity" of your sacraments or clergy. Sure, bishops and patriarchs have said things both over the top positive and over the top negative regarding the Catholic Church. But nothing of that is official. Most orthodox you meet would have a very difficult time saying that the sacraments int eh West are NOT real, even the pretty hard core anti-catholic types. But all agree that if we came into reunion (one based on truth) that all sacraments and Sees would be valid.

If reunion is going to happen, we can't make obligations of one side to have to say "we WERE wrong" or anything about the past. We need to let that behind us. Why should it be a requirement for all bishops in the East to offically declare that from 1054 up to now the sacraments and bishops in the West were valid??? Most believe that personally anyway... but even if they don't.... does it matter if we happened to be on the brink of signing of a declaration on reunion? Why drudge up the past? We need to move forward (and I am not accusing the RC of doing this alone.... chances are WE are the ones who do this more out of the two groups). With the filioque... if Rome decided to get rid of it to make reunion easier, I think it would be absurd for the East to say... "okay, now say you're sorry and admit that you never should have unilaterally changed the creed...c'mon!" of course not. Who cares? The fact is that it would no longer be an issue and we would have the charity or humility (however one wants to view it) of Rome to thank for that.

There is the ministry of the pope as Head of the Church: that is very difficoult to explain: to understand what it means you shall consider the ministry of the Bizantine Emperor towards the Church: that is something to be better defined.

Actually the Role and priorites of the EP are pretty well outlined and are not very impressive. I dont ahve the link but Ilian linked it for me one day. What I don't uunderstand is why the (theoretical) Role or Rome according to the Vatican would be so hard to explain. Is universal jurisdiction and Infallibility and everlasting and innate aspect to the See of Peter or not? the question is not if She is using or even ever HAS used that power... but is it Her unique right to do so that another entity shall never have except by Rome's allowance?

About the remarks of His Beatitude Gregoire III LAMAN you quoted (that shows how much liberty there is into the CC), please consider that he was complaing that the Vatican is not giving a huge honour to the 'uniates patriarch ministry': that is due to the fact that the Vatican now wants to keep good relationships with EO Churches, and each time the Vatican calls H.B. LAMAN to be a 'patriach', the EO Patriachs feel themself offended. In other words, the 'uniate sistem' is no more the way taken by the Vatican towards the East.

I will admit that there is an interesting point in the excerpt above. The Vatican loses PR points either way with the EO and that is, in part, due to some pettiness on our part. However, I still think that it does a good job in demonstrating the fact that Rome sees it as Her right to allow or not allow the East to be the East. As of now, she sees it as Her duty to allow the East to be as autonomous as possible- but the patriach does not see Rome's failure to properly execute this autonomy (be that due to EO influence nad pettiness or whatever) as the problem but the fact that Rome sees this as HER duty to execute. You speak of Liberty in the CC. Yes, the Vatican has granted MUCH liberty to the ECs,... and? This liberty should never have to be granted in the first place.


I look forward to your response if you have time. I am sure it will come to a point when we are just talking in circles but you bring up good points and I learn from them despite my still not agreeing with you on all points or not completely understanding your point.

God bless you,

John

PS: where are you from?

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I think you are right on this canon and the odd and embarrassing thing is that the EP (either this one or the one before) did just that. If anyone (Orthodox) can explain this to me that would be great. But it has caused a bit/lot of suspicion on the part of many other Orthdox Bishoprics in regards to the EP. Oh well... humans will be imperfect and the layity just has to keep praying.

John

 

[a_ntv]

Some brief points:

About the 'universal jurisdiction' of the pope, in fact the council Vatican I made same statments about that: but the Council Vatican II changed complelty way and highlighted the ministry of the bishops (alone and as a collegue): the unity with the pope is necessary and seen as the unity with the Church.
In view of a (very distant) unity, the jurisdiction is not at all a problem.

Probably you dont want to speak of jurisdiction, but of the opposite views of 'particular chruches' vs 'universal church': that is a problem of Ecclesiology and both the positions are present in the EO (this matter is a deep unsolved problem in the EO theology: simply ask when the Church was started: at the creation of the world or at Pentecost? or ask: ascesis or sacraments?)

About the validity of Catholic Sacraments, that is a base point, and the past is extremly important: the key of apostolic succession is a valid sacrament of order during the past centuries.
(for you infos, the CC considers valid all sacraments and all bishops of both EO and OO: the CVII was clear on that)

About the 'Uniates', I answer here because I dont want to be polemic in Taw

you make it sound as if they just found out of their existence. lol Could it be that they were concerned with what they percieved as proselytizing on the ECs part and that the Vatican wasn't really doing much about it? Im n ot saying that they should have walked out... I dont know the nature of the talks really, but the issue is much more complicated than their mere existence lol

The 'Uniate' problem deeply touchs an idea of Church typical of the EO (and not ad instance of the OO, that have by far less problem with the uniates). It is not a problem of proselytizing (that do no more exist), but most EO cannot really accept the existence of these Churches.
That because historcally speaking the EO have been stricly tied with the State (I'm not speaking of recent US Orthodox Churches): The EO Churches are sons of the Bizantine Empire where the union between Church and State was ontological. After the 1453 the EO Churches has always been tied to nations: they are national Churches.
(ad instance a very few years ago the Church of Greece was extremly fabourable to have the religion of any greek people written on the id cards, while that is against the European Comunity norms)
So the Russian Patriachate considers the territory of the former Soviet Union as its own domain, because tied with the National Identity: no matter that some people there prefer (since five century) to be in union with Rome: the idea of these EO Chuches is: One State, One Religion: for us that is etremly wrong, on the theology level before that on a pratical level.
That is no more possible. But after the fall of comunism the history is quickly changing....

Sorry my terrible English....I'm from Italy

 

[Teke]

what? is this for real? I'm confused...

It's from a fictional writing by an Orthodox priest in the US. From his personal blog site. He wrote it in a response to what we see is not always what it really is. After the funeral of the last pope, which seeemed to have an Orthodox presiding over.

Don't be confused.

Here is what he wrote ,

My piece of fiction, "Is the Pope Catholic", may have caused some confusion -- particularly after there seemed to be an Orthodox bishop participating in Friday's papal funeral. But, like the article, all things are not as they seem. I received the following clarification regarding the TRISAGION PRAYERS OF MERCY which were conducted Friday at the Vatican near the close of the funeral of Pope John Paul II:

Those prayers (prayed in Greek and Arabic) were done by UNIATE clergy (also known as Greek Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Eastern Rite Catholic, etc.) and not by Orthodox clergy. Even though Uniates may "look like us and sound like us," they are not us. Their singing of "Khristos Anesti" and "Al-Maseeh Qaam," during what for Orthodox is the middle week of the Great Fast, should have been a dead give away (being Uniates they celebrated Pascha with the rest of the Roman Catholic world). The Orthodox delegation to the funeral, headed by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, was seated together (opposite the world leaders) wearing no vestments and taking no part in any of the services. By the way, the man in full Byzantine episcopal vestments who presided over the Uniate's Trisagion Prayers of Mercy was the Melkite (a term indicating an Arab Uniate of the Byzantine Rite) "Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem."​

Another site notes that the full title of the participant, the cleric who read the prayer O God of spirits and all flesh, His Holiness Gregory III Laham, the Melkite Greek-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, is: Patriarch of the cities of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, of Cilicia, Syria, Iberia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, of all of Egypt and the entire East, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Bishop of Bishops, the Thirteenth of the Holy Apostles and Judge of the World. (Now that's a business card!)
Thanks to In principio erat Verbum.

At the time he wanted to clarify the real mc coy, so to speak.
Sorry for messin with you a bit.
Just keeping one on their toes to what is real and what isn't. (I bolded his point)

 

[a_ntv]

Last monday the week of dialogue between 60 theologicans Catholic and Ortohodox ended.

They did not issued any document, but a simply common declaration of friendship and will to continue the dialogue, that anyway is vary important and it iwas the maximun result possible (here the official text http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2006/09/25-09-06-e.html)

Please note a margin polemic between the Orthodox Church of Russia and the Orthodox Church of Costantinople (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

The anwer of Cardinal Kasper was that "The question is inter-Orthodox and is not an argument of discussion between Catholics and Orthodox"
(Please browse: http://www.zenit.org/english/ and follow 'Inter-Orthodox Unity Vital for Ecumenism, Says Cardinal')

Anyway it is extremly interesting looking the sentence on which there have been the un-agreement between Moscow and Rome: At the final session, however, a heated argument developed of a document’s section on the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, which says inter alia that after the severance of communion between East and West in the ninth century, a convocation of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ in the strong sense of the world 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.’ (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

This sentence was not signed by the catholics only because the rivaltry between Moscow vs Costanitnople, but -if signed- it could mean that any ecumenical council after the 1054 is not actually ecumenic, and so not striclty binding in doctrine: think to Trento, or to Vatican I (=pope infallibility). And without the pope infallibilty, no more IC dogmas..

I think that the CC, to will sign something like that, really loves the union with the EO

Your ideas?

 

[Teke]

One word describes the problem that continues in these talks. That word is "conciliarity". This seems to be the main issue. And after so long, and so much that has been taught, and accepted, can the Roman papacy become conciliar, as stated in and by the councils of the Church.

______________________

The particular form of primacy among the Churches exercised by the bishops of Rome has been and remains the chief point of dispute between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and their chief obstacle to full ecclesial communion with each other. Disagreement has often centered on the way in which the leadership exercised by Peter in expressing and confirming the faith of the other disciples (Matt 16.17f.; Lk 22.32; John 21.15-19) is to be realized in Church life. The Orthodox have emphasized that the role of Peter within the apostolic college is reflected principally in the role of the church. Roman Catholics have claimed for the bishops of Rome, since the fourth century, not only the first place in honor among their episcopal colleagues but also the "Petrine" role of proclaiming the Church's apostolic tradition and of ensuring the observation of canonical practices.

As our Consultation has suggested in its earlier statement, "Apostolicity as God's Gift in the Life of the Church" (1986; par. 12), "There is no intrinsic opposition between these two approaches." The Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a "primacy of honor" accorded to a primus inter pares; at the same time, they cannot accept an understanding of the role of the primate which excludes the collegiality and interdependence of the whole body of bishops, and in consequence continue to reject the formulation of Papal primacy found in Vatican I's constitution Pastor Aeternus. Engaged since the Second Vatican Council in further development of the doctrine of Papal primacy within the context of a collegially responsible episcopate (see especially Lumen Gentium 22-23), the Roman Catholic Church is presently seeking new forms of synodal leadership which will be compatible with its tradition of effective universal unity in faith and practice under the headship of the bishop of Rome.
http://www.usccb.org/seia/conprim.shtml

___________________

Where is conciliar to be found in the Church of Rome with the Eastern Churchs.

________________

If the papacy is to be exercised in a way that serves Christian unity better, the Catholic Church must become more conciliar, with broader participation at all levels in church governance, several ecumenists said at forum Sept. 26, 2005 at Georgetown University.

Protopresbyter Hopko said, "The pope is the de facto leader of the Christian world. He is the Dalai Lama of Christianity."

He said the Orthodox today "would affirm more than ever" the need for a single leader of world Christianity," but in Orthodox thinking "there is no bishop of bishops. Every bishop is 'servus servorum Dei' (the servant of the servants of God, one of the titles held by the pope)."

 

[thereselittleflower]

I think John's point is best illustrated by the fact that Roman cardinals decided that Eastern bishops could no longer ordain married men.

Please IP, the way you present this is disingenuous.

This has never be catagorically denied the Eastern Bishops. The only place this has happened is in America, and I pointed you to an article about this in another thread. It was a situation that arose in North America because of concern that married priests, in the US at the time, would scandalize the Catholics in America if they were ordained IN North America. But if a priest was ordained oversees, and came to North America alreayd married, that was no problem.

There is question regarding the whole situation and what actually happened with the Ruthinians (sp?) and misunderstandings . . . that is almost 100 years ago. I showed you an article which demonsrates that there has been ordination of married clergy in North America in recent years, and the Vatican has had no problem with it. There is no rush of men in the Eastern Church who are married wanting to become priests either.

I have problems with the way you attack the Catholic Church on this issues for several reasons:

1. You took something that was extremely limited in scope and have attacked it as though it was some big, huge thing, at it wasn't.
2. You have made it sound as if it affected every Eastern Church in union with Rome everywhere (no qualification in anything you said above or in OBOB about this when you brought it up there too) when it didn't.
3. You have made it sound as if married clergy are no no longer allowed in the Eastern Churches which is catagorically untrue.

If you are going to bring up something you have a problem with about the Catholic Church, then at least be considerate enough to portray it accurately without making such over-broad, sweeping generalizations that are not true.

This is a PRIME example of Rome seeing itself as being in charge and able to grant liberty to the EC's as well as taking it away.

It seems to me that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have done similar things in areas that are primarily Eastern Orthodox. America was primarily Catholic, and Eastern Missions came in later. The differences in practice in this regard was considered a point of scandal to a whole people in America who were well established Catholics. . . it is not so overwhelmingly "controlling" as you want to make it appear.

Please explain why we have married Eastern clergy today if what you say is so catagorically and overwhelmingly and sweepingly true? The issue rose 100 years ago . . I am sure all the married clergy of th time are long since dead. How is it we have married clegy in the East to day if this is such a "big" problem?

Rome should have had no business mucking around with the EC in this regard, but to avoid scandalizing the good Irish Catholics in America who saw married priests as impure and scandalous, they yanked the chain ever tighter.

"who saw marrried priets as impure and scandulous"

yep . . they saw them as "impure" . . it would have nothing to do with the fact that the Catholics were used to a unmarried priesthood that was the practice for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and to see married priests in union with Rome would have caused confusion and scandal . . "why can they do it but we can't", right?

Put it in as negative a light as you can, use emotionally charged negative words, make it sound as evil as you can . . . . Please IP, be real about this, stop exaggerating the issue. It happened in a very limited fashion, yes. . but not like you portray it.

Until Rome admits that it has NO authority to do things like that, the hope of unity is absolutely nill.

According to who, you? Again, you are free to express your opinion IP, but really, that is all it is, and because you are exaggerating the issue here, it is an opinion that is not well based on actual history.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

A clear example of the oversight and universal jurisdiction of the Popes occured when the conflict between two Patriarchs of Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius, arose.

Ignatius was unjustly deposed by the Emperor, and young Photius was ordained and put in his place. Ignatius appealed to Rome, not a group of Partriarchs, but to The See of Peter to have this unjust action undone.

Photius also appealed to Rome to confirm his elevation to the position of Patriarch. Eventually, the Holy See of Rome, orderd that Ignatius be reinstated. And that is exactly what happened. Photius was removed from his position and Ignatius was reinstated as Partriarch of Constantinople.

This is a clear demonstration of the type of universal jurisdiction Rome occupied in the Early Church, which was recognized by those involved at the time as legitimate (even if they didn't want to like Photius when it didn't go his way).


What concerns me is that EO don't even want to acknowledge this type of universal jurisdiction, when in fact the East once acknowledged it, which is clear by their actions.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

One word describes the problem that continues in these talks. That word is "conciliarity". This seems to be the main issue. And after so long, and so much that has been taught, and accepted, can the Roman papacy become conciliar, as stated in and by the councils of the Church.

______________________

The particular form of primacy among the Churches exercised by the bishops of Rome has been and remains the chief point of dispute between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and their chief obstacle to full ecclesial communion with each other. Disagreement has often centered on the way in which the leadership exercised by Peter in expressing and confirming the faith of the other disciples (Matt 16.17f.; Lk 22.32; John 21.15-19) is to be realized in Church life. The Orthodox have emphasized that the role of Peter within the apostolic college is reflected principally in the role of the church. Roman Catholics have claimed for the bishops of Rome, since the fourth century, not only the first place in honor among their episcopal colleagues but also the "Petrine" role of proclaiming the Church's apostolic tradition and of ensuring the observation of canonical practices.

As our Consultation has suggested in its earlier statement, "Apostolicity as God's Gift in the Life of the Church" (1986; par. 12), "There is no intrinsic opposition between these two approaches." The Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a "primacy of honor" accorded to a primus inter pares; at the same time, they cannot accept an understanding of the role of the primate which excludes the collegiality and interdependence of the whole body of bishops, and in consequence continue to reject the formulation of Papal primacy found in Vatican I's constitution Pastor Aeternus. Engaged since the Second Vatican Council in further development of the doctrine of Papal primacy within the context of a collegially responsible episcopate (see especially Lumen Gentium 22-23), the Roman Catholic Church is presently seeking new forms of synodal leadership which will be compatible with its tradition of effective universal unity in faith and practice under the headship of the bishop of Rome.
http://www.usccb.org/seia/conprim.shtml

___________________

Where is conciliar to be found in the Church of Rome with the Eastern Churchs.

________________

If the papacy is to be exercised in a way that serves Christian unity better, the Catholic Church must become more conciliar, with broader participation at all levels in church governance, several ecumenists said at forum Sept. 26, 2005 at Georgetown University.

Protopresbyter Hopko said, "The pope is the de facto leader of the Christian world. He is the Dalai Lama of Christianity."

He said the Orthodox today "would affirm more than ever" the need for a single leader of world Christianity," but in Orthodox thinking "there is no bishop of bishops. Every bishop is 'servus servorum Dei' (the servant of the servants of God, one of the titles held by the pope)."

Maybe not in Orthodox thinking today, but has that really always been the case?

See, the Orthodox seem to want the Cathoics to do all the moving, but what about the Orthodox being willing to move back to positions they once held regarding the Papacy?

Are the Orthodox wanting to be concilliar too?


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

During the conclave for the election of BXVI, in 2005, many italian newspapers wrote that the cardinals had actualy considered to elect an Orthodox as pope.

In fact that could be perfectly canonical: because a bishop of EO (or OO) is considered a bishop also for the CC so not new-ordination ld be necessary.

And the pope becames 'pope' (bishop of rome) in the very instant he accepts saying 'yes' in front the cardinals in the conclave, and there is not need of any act of faith of the pope or of any cerimony.

But IMO the Patriach of Costantinople cannot change see: there is some canon of a early ecumenical council that forbid the moving of bishops between different sees (please correct me): but there are many Orthodox Bishops without a see...

And there have been Eastern Bishops elected to the position of Pope in the past, before the Great Schism.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

By fisrt you are reffering to something happened in the west (US): the west a is a 'territory' of latin rite, and so it is better to avoid scandals.
Anyway, that is not not true for easter 'territories', where there is no danger of scandal

ANYWAY the 'uniate' way is NOT the way foreseen by Rome for a union with EO !!!!

Every attitude taken by Vatican towards the Eastern Orthodox Churches is criticated by EO:
- if the vatican give them too liberty, as calling their bishop 'Patriarch', the EO Churches cry out that they are deeply offended, because only the EO can have true Patriarchs
- if the Vatican give them too few liberties, the EO Churches scream that the Vatican want to submit all Churches as it is doing with the Eastern Catholic Churches

IMO there is a few charity in that.

Agreed.



Peace

 

[Xpycoctomos]

A clear example of the oversight and universal jurisdiction of the Popes occured when the conflict between two Patriarchs of Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius, arose.

Ignatius was unjustly deposed by the Emperor, and young Photius was ordained and put in his place. Ignatius appealed to Rome, not a group of Partriarchs, but to The See of Peter to have this unjust action undone.

Photius also appealed to Rome to confirm his elevation to the position of Patriarch. Eventually, the Holy See of Rome, orderd that Ignatius be reinstated. And that is exactly what happened. Photius was removed from his position and Ignatius was reinstated as Partriarch of Constantinople.

This is a clear demonstration of the type of universal jurisdiction Rome occupied in the Early Church, which was recognized by those involved at the time as legitimate (even if they didn't want to like Photius when it didn't go his way).


What concerns me is that EO don't even want to acknowledge this type of universal jurisdiction, when in fact the East once acknowledged it, which is clear by their actions.



Peace

I'm not denying that there was ever a type of de facto universal jurisdiction in play in the Earlier periods of Church and that was attributed to Rome. There are various reasons for this and I will not deny that one of these reasons is that it was an important See of Peter and was historically the See that was attributed to him, the Rock. There are many other reasons, but that certainly is among the most important.

However, I cannot see how or why this is an inherent aspect of Rome. The Church as a whole voluntarily afforded this honor (a true honor, one with actual teeth to it... not just in words) to Rome and not because it MUST be Rome but because it was best and most logical for the Church do so in this fashion. So, this perrogative is not for Rome to decided alone nor was it ever. The naturally did this and for many reasons that Catholics (IMO) rightly point out. But I do not agree with where Rome is, there is the Church. I am sure that certain Saints have said something similar...but they were Saints,not gods. What they were expressing was from their own cultural point of view limited and dressed by the times they lived in. In the time we live, we imagine that the USA will always be this grandiose country with democratic values and we can't imagine that ever changing. But, it very well could. It is impossible for us to imagine what would be the fate of the US in, say, 1000 years from now. Such a place of honor (or hate) in the world might be inappropriate, ridiculous and evern have NOTHING do to with how politics will worrk in the 3rd millenium. Times changes. THe Holy Spirit will always work through the Church, but the RCC seems to suggest that Rome's place is eternal and that it will only step aside if She decides so. The Church has changed since then and while Rome is noticing that and learning very well to step aside, it is important the Rome realize that this is not liberty SHE is granting to the Entire Church (Assumminng we were unified) but that is the innate right of all Churches.


I don't know. That's how i see it in a nutshell. I do want to reiterate, however, that I think that Catholics have a lot of good historical points to show that Rome's honor was more than just a good pad on the back saying "you're special" fromt he rest of the Patriarchs.

John

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm not denying that there was ever a type of de facto universal jurisdiction in play in the Earlier periods of Church and that was attributed to Rome. There are various reasons for this and I will not deny that one of these reasons is that it was an important See of Peter and was historically the See that was attributed to him, the Rock. There are many other reasons, but that certainly is among the most important.

Thank you for this acknowledgement Xpycoctomos.

However, I cannot see how or why this is an inherent aspect of Rome.

It's not "Rome" per se because it's "Rome" . . It's the See of Peter, which has resided in Rome, and so "Rome" and the See of Peter are often spoken of synonymously.

The Church as a whole voluntarily afforded this honor (a true honor, one with actual teeth to it... not just in words) to Rome and not because it MUST be Rome but because it was best and most logical for the Church do so in this fashion.

Because that was were the See of Peter resided. It was the See of Peter that was aforded this honor.

So, this perrogative is not for Rome to decided alone nor was it ever.

It was a position of honor given Peter by the Lord Himself. His See came to reside in Rome, and so Rome became synonymous with The See of Peter. . . Where ever the See of Peter is, this is where this honor resides . . it happens that it has been in Rome.

The naturally did this and for many reasons that Catholics (IMO) rightly point out. But I do not agree with where Rome is, there is the Church. I am sure that certain Saints have said something similar...but they were Saints,not gods. What they were expressing was from their own cultural point of view limited and dressed by the times they lived in. In the time we live, we imagine that the USA will always be this grandiose country with democratic values and we can't imagine that ever changing. But, it very well could. It is impossible for us to imagine what would be the fate of the US in, say, 1000 years from now. Such a place of honor (or hate) in the world might be inappropriate, ridiculous and evern have NOTHING do to with how politics will worrk in the 3rd millenium. Times changes. THe Holy Spirit will always work through the Church, but the RCC seems to suggest that Rome's place is eternal and that it will only step aside if She decides so.

It is the See of Peter that is at issue . . the Rock Jesus said He would build His Church on.

Please follow with me on this. . . I know I am going to be repeating things you are already familiar with, but please bear with me.

When Jesus asked his disciples "who do you say I am?" Peter then proceeded to tell Jesus who He was.

Then Jesus turned around and started to tell Peter who Peter was.

These words were set in a physical local that was quite impressive - a massive rock cliff loomed above. At the bottom was a cave, with a deep river far below underneath, the depths of which could not be plumbed. The cave was known as 'the gates of hades". It was believed that the river flowed to the world of the underground, the abode of the dead, etc.

In this natural, impressive and overwhelming backdrop, Jesus proceeds to tell Peter who he is.

"You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build My Church and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it"

Kepha is a massive rock, like a rock cliff. . . This is what Jesus said Peter was . . and we have the massive rock cliff in the background, giving strong, concrete testimony to what Jesus just said. It is not lost on Peter or the disciples.

It is on this kepha, this massive rock He just said Peter was to be, that Jesus would build His Church.

He then said that the gates of hades would not prevail against "it". It is interesting that the neuter "it" is used here.

Now return with me to the background this is set in . the massive rock cliff and the cave known as the gates of hades beneath. Imagine the Church as a gleaming, brilliant temple on top of that massive rock cliff.

How can the gates of hades overcome that magnificant temple gleaming way up on top of the rock cliff?

Only if it overcomes the rock cliff first!

That means that in order for the gates of hades to overcome the Church, it first has to overcome Peter.

This is the strong imagery Jesus was using when He said all this about Peter and the Church.

How can the Church not be where Peter is?

Why do you think there is such huge attacks against the Catholic Church in the media and not the Orthodox Churches or the protestant groups, even though the things that the Catholic Church is attacked for are found in all 3 groups?

Satan is after "Peter", the See of Peter, to destroy it, for he knows that he has to go through "Peter" to get to the Church to overcome Her.

The Church has changed since then and while Rome is noticing that and learning very well to step aside, it is important the Rome realize that this is not liberty SHE is granting to the Entire Church (Assumminng we were unified) but that is the innate right of all Churches.

I believe that it is the fear of excessive control that frightens many in the EO, and from all I have studied, I believe it is largely unfounded, and I believe it is a tool o the enemy to keep us apart.

I don't know. That's how i see it in a nutshell. I do want to reiterate, however, that I think that Catholics have a lot of good historical points to show that Rome's honor was more than just a good pad on the back saying "you're special" fromt he rest of the Patriarchs.

John

Thank you John. I appreciate your honesty and open heart.

 

[a_ntv]

I don't know. That's how i see it in a nutshell. I do want to reiterate, however, that I think that Catholics have a lot of good historical points to show that Rome's honor was more than just a good pad on the back saying "you're special" fromt he rest of the Patriarchs.
John

Great!

I think that that is a good start for meeting each others.

Even if I think that a union shall be possible only when, on the both side, the people will start asking "why are we separated?": in other words not considering the posible union only necessary, but also right.
For that, in the best way, it will be necessary some generations of people.

But it is very important that we are the people that start to think positivly about the union, and we shall widespread this understanding between out brothers in our churches/parishes.
And in some generations, our sons will see the results.