Indeed! It is a history full of the good, the bad and the ugly on both sides.

That said, the primacy was more than just commemorating someone's name before another.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Joe,

Interesting points. Does that mean an Orthodox Patriarch cannot exercise his patriarchal authority outside his diocese in the name of the synod without their direct, explicit approval (through some type of democratic process, I assume)? Is it possible for him to take action in the name of the synod as Patriarch without their explicit approval?

God bless,

Gordo

As I understand it, the synod and patriarch must always work together. In other words, the primus is not over his synod, but stands as one within it.

It's certainly debatable to what extent primacy means actual authority outside of one's own church. I think it engenders very little, and is essentially honorific as its intent was in the New Testament. If primacy has been used beyond that, I think it is an misuse of this form of leadership.

Bishop Hilarion's position perhaps in places can be shown to be inconsistent historically, but his argument overall I believe is correct in principle. The double edged sword is that the current Papacy is itself inconsistent with history, both with its theoretical conception of itself and the actual way things happened. This inconsistency unfortunately has not remained an opinion, but is an ecclesiological dogma. It's bad theology, and that's what Bishop Hilarion is pointing out, and why he's re-affirming the Orthodox position.

I think the lesser point is that Constantinople made a huge and really needless mistake by including the Estonians, but I think that shows their mindset right now.

I think the EP cannot be faulted in this latest MP walk out.

The membership in the International Commission was fixed at the very beginning: the Catholic side will have 30 official delegates equal to the 30 official Orthodox delegates, 2 each for the first 15 Autocephalous Churches (i.e., the OCA is not included).

The Orthodox Church of Estonia is divided into the MP faction (majority) and the EP faction. Neither is autocephelaous; at best both are autonomous answering to their respective mother Churches.

The EP invited her faction to the meeting in Ravenna as "guests" or "observers" and not as official delegates. The Estonians cannot be official delegates because of the pre-existing structure of the IC.

The overreaction of Bishop Hilarion and his co-delegate for the ROC-MP to the presence of the EP faction of the Estonian Cbhurch is unbecoming, to say the least. Bishop Hilarion knows fully well that the Estonian hierarchs would not be able to influence the talks; they are not official members of the Orthodox panel. He just did not want to see the Estonian hierarchs there.

The other official delegates of the Orthodox panel did not see any transgressions or incursions attributable to the Estonian hierarchs and continued to talk with their Catholic counterparts after the ROC-MP walked out and came up with agreed statement(s) for publication in the future. For as long as a majority of the 15 Autocephalous Orthodox Churches continue to attend and meet and discuss with their Catholic couterparts, I think the IC will go on as usual.

It is both surprising and unfortunate that Bishop Hilarion and the ROC-MP now brings up the numbers of faithful being represented in the dialogues. Membership in the International Commission for the Orthodox side was never predicated on this kind of numbers but on the number of Autocephalous Churches universally recognized by Orthodoxy, which is 15.

If ever Bishop Hilarion and his co-delegate return to the next IC meeting (11th), he will tug along certain heirarchs of autonomous Orthodox Churches loyal to Moscow. He might even invite representatives of the OCA!

And now, for the EP side:



Full story:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10597&size=A

Hmmmm I don't know, I was leaning more towards the Russians but after reading that I think Constantinople's stance may be in the right.

What exactly was accomplished by this dialogue?

Joe

If you mean the 10th Plenary Meeting of the International Commission in Ravenna, Italy, last week, the Catholic-Orthodox panels, sans the ROC-MP, have agreed on a statement that specifically addresses the topic: "The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church - Conciliarity and Synodality in the Church." (Btw, this topic was set in the agenda of the IC way back in 1990 in Moscow.)

The "Agreed Statement" is yet to be made public. However, this statement will be used as a spring board for the discussion at the next IC meeting (11th, to be hosted by the Orthodox in the next year or two) of the contentious but very important topic: "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium."

The ROC-MP recently constituted a Committee of theologians to address this topic and come up with an official position paper to be submitted to the other members of the Orthodox panel for joint adoption as the official Orthodox position. But how can the ROC-MP present such an official position paper if her delegates keep on walking out of the IC meetings? The EP, through Met. Ioannis Zizioulas, has already prepared, or is preparing, her own official position paper.

A small step but a "giant leap" in the ecumenical dialogue between us.

Another way of looking at it:

Rome, Oct. 19, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Recent ecumenical talks between Catholic and Orthodox theologians were a substantial step forward, despite the objections of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, according to a spokesman for the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

In a conversation with the AsiaNews service, Metropolitan Ioannis of Pergamon said that the decision of the Moscow patriarchate to walk out of meetings in Ravenna, Italy, reflected the “authoritarianism” in the Russian approach, and said that the Moscow patriarchate was “isolated” since “no other Orthodox Church followed its lead.”

Metropolitann Ioannis, who co-chaired the Ravenna meeting along with Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), noted that a statement drawn up during the discussions had won unanimous approval. That agreement, he said, “overshadowed the pullout of the Russian delegation.”

The Russian Orthodox participants had refused to join in the talks at Ravenna because a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church-- which Russia does not recognize-- was included. Metropolitan Ioannis noted that the Estonian Church was recognized by the Patriarch of Constantine, since the Estonian Orthodox Church had been recognized as an independent entity until it was suppressed by Soviet forces.

The writing is on the wall, and I think Metropolitan John doesn't wish to recognize it.

And the writing says....?

Gordo

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory To Him Forever!

Gordo, the Estonian Church does not necessarily want to be under the Phanar, the non-Russian minority part of it does. The vast majority of Orthodox in Estonia are ethnic Russians and want to be under Moscow.

Under the Czarist period, a good number of Ethnic Estonians became Orthodox from Lutheranism. This was not by any means merely the result of Russification in the Empire. There was very saintly work done in Estonia (particularly by a bishop) that led to conversions to Orthodoxy (and these ethic Finno-Ugric Estonians want the EP). Unfortunately, North American ethnic-jurisdictionalism (from the breaking up or Orthodox unity here because of the Bolshevik Revolution) is a prototype being used in the diaspora, and now even in areas effected by the Fall of Communism. The search for Souls and Euros. Fallen Man's fleshiness!

By the way for our AHOS Gang (Hey the Best, Right, but a Motley Crew if ever there was one?), Fr. Alexander Schmemann was born in ... Tallinn, Estonia. Names like Schmemann and Meyendorff are ... German. So was the Czarina.

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Be!

Three Cents

A question.

In a italian catholic but un-official site ( link) there is an article where is written "The Ecumenical Patriarcate is worried for the role that metropolitan Hilarion is playing in this affair [Ravenna], for what looks like to be a weakening of the Russian Patriarch Alexius II and for the starting of the "internal transition"

Is it true?

Sorry, I don't read Italian.
But I think this comment by Metropolitan Ioannis of Pergamon, one of Commission’s two co-chairs with Card Walter Kasper is significant.
The childish behavious of the MP will not effect the good work of the dialogue in the long run.