www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russians leave ecumenical talks in rift with Constantinople

In all seriousness, unity can't be forced on anyone by anyone. That is as true within the church the Pope oversees as without. The rift in Orthodoxy will be healed when the leaders of those churches decide they have the desire to see their problems solved. Any type of unity between East and West will take place when each side looks at it's history, swallows it's pride, and gives up on their claims or control and authority over each other and basically all just agree to co-exist.

People point out that pride is the issue, and they're absolutely right, it's the pride of both sides that keeps them apart. That is the drumbeat of history. It was what pushed the non chalcedonians out, split East and West, spurred the Reformation and then the wholesale revolt against religion which has taken place in both East and West. It is pride, authority and desire for control that has led to the situation as it is now. It is what will allow alternative spiritualities to thrive, or no spirituality to exist at all. Christendom tends to be its own worst enemy, and the topic of the thread is a great example.

There are problems in Holy Orthodox Church concerning jurisdiction, escpecially in the western countries. These problems must be solved on a Pan - Orthodox Council, because they are very bad for the mission of Holy Orthodoxy in the world.
I am against papal authority. That authority is based on distorted christian ecclesiology.
It has nothing to do with pride if we defend our Faith and Tradition.

Todd,

My point is to say that no limitation is asserted, which is precisely the opposite of what Joe was saying.



Not so sure as to the level of ambiguity....

In ICXC,

Gordo

And yet that is so very clearly and explicitly contradicted by so many Fathers, including Eusebius who was clearly a fan of the Imperial Ecclesiology which places the Emperor in the role as the guarantor of ecclesial unity and Athanasius who was no fan of the Imperial Ecclesiology (nor of Eusebius and his semi-Arianism).

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

You are incorrect, because the text limits the Roman Church's authority to the region of the Romans, i.e., central Italy.

God bless,
Todd

There is no such thing as a "sacrament" of primacy. The Pope is simply a bishop, and no bishop has authority over any other bishop, because the sacrament of orders is one.

That said, I reject entirely the later "developments" in Roman theology that turned the Pope into a "supreme pontiff." Primacy must never be confused with supremacy.

God bless,
Todd

Today, there was the catholic Mass in the Ravenna cathedral for the joint session of Catholic and Orthodox theologians

At the end of the Mass, the Archbishop of Ravenna said that:
- in the next days there will be a common declaration
- a document, named "Ravenna document", has been prepared by the joint session of Catholic and Orthodox theologians, and it will be kept "under embargo" (not public) till Nov 15
- the next meeting of the joint session of Catholic and Orthodox theologians will be in 2009

Tomorrow morning at 10 am Rome Time (4 am New Your time) there will be the Orthodox Liturgy in the ancient S.Vitale Church at the closing of the meeting.
This liturgy, as today one's, will be broadcasted by the Italian catholic TV telepace [telepace.it] (you can see it by internet with www .sopcast. com)

The "primacy" view is not only held by Rome, but to a lesser degree (they don't claim infallibility, but that the Patriarch has *some* real authority) by Antioch and Alexandrian schools as well.

Primacy and synodality are inseparably bound together, and no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue until Rome returns to the ancient teaching of the Church as exemplified in Canon 34 of the Apostles.

Todd,

No one here (as far as I can tell) has asserted that there is any such thing as a "sacrament of primacy". Just because there is no "sacrament", however, does not deny that primacy is constituitive element of the sacramental reality of the Church. There is no "sacrament of collegiality" qua sacrament either, but no one is saying that it does not exist because of that!

Both primacy and collegiality are twin manifestations of the apostolicity of the Church, focused principally on Holy Orders and the Episcopate.

And primacy among hierarchs has existed and continues to exist even today within the East. There are such things as suffragan sees and bishops, for instance, as Jerusalem was to the Metropolitan of Caesarea. The notion that all bishops somehow existed collegially without any hint of primacy being exercised by any of them is simply absurd and absolutely contradicts the history of the Church. And what of the relationship between a Patriarch and the bishops in his patriarchal Church? There is after all no "sacrament of patriarchy".

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is unique among his brother bishops, and no amount of re-reading of the Church fathers, councils and history can deny this.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

We will have to agree to disagree on the nature of the primacy, because -- unlike you -- I do not read the Church Fathers in the light of the teaching of Vatican I. In fact, none of the Fathers would ever support the notion that the bishop of Rome can -- on his own authority -- infallibly bind the Church to anything, nor would they support the spurious Western doctrine of universal papal jurisdiction.

God bless,
Todd

It does not require "re-reading" the Church Father; instead, it requires an honest reading of the Church Fathers, i.e., one that is not bound to the 19th century Roman concepts of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction.

Todd,

First of all, it is incorrect to say I read the Fathers of the Church concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome "in light of the teaching of Vatican I". It is far more accurate (for myself) to say I attempt to read Vatican I in light of the Fathers of the Church.

Secondly, if I read you correctly, you speak in sweeping terms about the Church Fathers regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and what all of them - East, West, Latin, Greek and Syraic - would or would not agree to or support concerning modern developments pertaining to the papacy. Point of fact, you do not know whether or not they would agree or deny the teachings of Vatican I and you cannot say that it is the case with any full assurance, certainly to the extent of asserting that no Father whatsoever would have supported it. To assume such a thing is really not doing justice to the Fathers. It is far better to say, IMHO, that you personally do not find sufficient evidence for the teachings of Vatican I in the Church Fathers. Not surprisingly, there are many who would agree and many who would disagree with you. Some do see quite a bit of evidence there. But neither of us can really speak on behalf of the Church Fathers beyond reading their writings and about their lives.

Finally, early evidence for the universal jurisdiction can be found, for instance, in Pope Stephen's excommunication of many of the Churches of Asia and Africa who refused to accept the Church's Apostolic Teaching concerning a second baptism of heretics, among other actions taken, some of which are chronicled by Eusebius.

In ICXC,

Gordo

My reading of the Church Fathers is not by implication "dishonest". But nor can I (nor should I) simply ignore or dismiss the voice of the living magisterium of the Church regarding these matters.

And Todd, one only has to read the Fathers to see the plain meaning of their words and their accounts. The role they ascribe to the Bishop of Rome is unique. Any unbiased reader can see that, even one who does not fully ascribe to the teachings of Vatican I.

I also noticed that you did not respond to my point regarding the exercise of primacy among the bishops and patriarchs, but merely attempted to cast aspersions on my objectivity by showing how biased I am in my reading of the Church Fathers. Does that mean you concede my points on this?

Michael,

Sorry to have missed your post here.

I wholeheartedly agree. Those three sees were known to have been the center of the universal koinonia also possessed an explicit Petrine connection: Rome, Peter's final see; Alexandria, the see established by Mark, his disciple; Antioch, a see established by Peter. Among the Churches, those three seemed to be the ones who had the greater claims to apostolicity. Constantinople later asserted itself as the #2, making its Petrine claim through Andrew the apostle, and thus a superior to Mark, the evangelist and disciple of an apostle.

But Rome was regarded as first among them in the exercise the full Petrine office, which included preventing the gates of hell (error and the prince of this world) from prevailing against the Church and her mission and bearing witness from East to West to the Gospel culminating in Peter's final witness through martyrdom in Rome. The Church of Rome and her bishop were looked to as the guardian of Orthodoxy and the final court of appeal.

Hence Athanasius' appeal to Rome regarding the injustices committed against him.

God bless,

Gordo