Chiesa news agency has published a copy of a draft text from the current ecumenical dialogue:



It's unofficial, but looks quite interesting. I haven't seen it mentioned here before, but if it has, I apologize for re-posting it.

The key issue, now as always, is a proper understanding of what was meant by "authority" (auctoritas) in late antiquity. Until consensus is reached on that, both sides will continue to talk past one another. The task is difficult, because it requires us to transcend our current "contractually-based" society to understand the workings of an "honor-based" society. It is as much an historical and anthropological task as it is a theological one.

Dear Dave:

To my knowledge, the unofficial (or official) agreed statement from the last meeting of the International Commission in Cyprus from October 16 thru October 23, 2009 has not been made public.

I think this draft by the Joint Coordinating Committee (of the International Commission) meeting in Crete the previous year from Septembr 27 to October 4, 2008 was to have been submitted to and discussed by the Commission at its meeting in Cyprus last October 2009.

However, it is interesting read if this draft was indeed adopted by the International Commission!

Amado

You will remember that in the weeks prior to the Cyprus meeting the Orthodox bishops, particularly those of Greece, began to take a hitherto unknown and active interest in the dialogue and they viewed with disapproval the direction in which Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper had been steering it (Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007.)

The upshot was the the bishops have stopped the issuing of any Joint Statements until and if they have examined them and given them synodal approval. While this will slow down the ecumenical dialogue it will place it on a much more secure footing.

You can read on the web the fulminations of Metropolitan Zizioulas against the Greek bishops for their "interference" and even his unconcealed threats against them!

Yada, yada,yada.

I think it is kind if exciting. Until now the Bishops have been content to ignore the dialogue and leave it in the hands of the small circle of enthusiasts with an interest in ecumenical contact. Now we have the bishops taking a hands-on attitude. It's all good!

Bless, Father,

I agree.

Dialogue embraced and and pronounced by those participating in the conversation has the potential to stir all sorts of excitement when viewed by onlookers, but often fails to consider that its full implementation in the real world will necessitate that others sign onto it as well.

When those 'others', regardless of who they are, have the opportunity to explore, comment, and vet the material before it becomes public, we're much more likely to see a product emerge that can be accepted by a broader audience than just those who are the true believers in and cheerleaders for the process.

Many years,

Neil

However, post hoc episcopal sniping is no substitution to full and active participation in the dialogue itself. In other words, they need to get beyond telling everyone what they oppose, and make some positive suggestions regarding what they support.

Indeed yes, and this is what the bishops are intending to do, to ensure that future delegates are versed in the thinking of their synod of bishops when they go to ecumenical meetings.

The prerequisite for that is some cerebration on the part of the bishops (or their tame theologians, if theological cerebration is beyond their capacity), followed by carefully crafted declarations, encyclicals and studies--none of which have been forthcoming, except out of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and some quarters of the OCA and Western European Orthodox centers. So, who's the Zizoulis of the Church of Greece? Who is the Clement of Moscow? You need a better motto than "No Popery!", not the least because that one is already taken.

I recently posted my analysis of this document on my blog and I thought you might all be interested:

http://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/02/05/analysis-pope-1st-millennium/

Eric Sammons

The really amazing part of all that is how closely it mirrors the writings of both Meyendorff and Schmemann going back to the 1980s. The dialogue has advanced to the point of admitting what two prominent Orthodox historians and theologians posited as true more than two decades ago. More remarkable, while at that time it seemed to be the Catholic side raising objections, today it is the Orthodox side. Perhaps if the Catholics had continued to object, the Orthodox would have coalesced around that position, at which time, in a well coordinated act of theological jiu-jitsu, the Catholics could have repudiated their objections, leaving the Orthodox in the position of either accepting a definition of primacy, or repudiating something on which they were already in agreement.

Yes, I AM saying the Orthodox like to move the goal posts in between plays.

Stuart, Is there really a need for these snide words about Orthodox bishops and their capacity for "theological cerebration." While you enjoy thunmping your chest and denigrating our hierarchs your uncalled for statements are damaging the good will between our Churches.



You must be aware that the Church of Russia established a theological commission after Belgrade 2006 to prepare a paper on the place of the bishop of Rome in the Church of the first millennium. This paper was completed and Archbishop Hilarion announced at the commencement of the Cyprus meeting that copies had been given to all participants, Catholic and Orthodox.

This document is also, for some reason unknown to us, being kept under a tight embargo. There are *many* of us who would like to see it and learn Russia's contribution to the dialogue. If only someone would leak it.....

On the heels of this statement from the link provided:
"– the Muslim expansion in the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as in the regions of North Africa and Spain."

... here are excerpts from one of the unofficial dialogues between the Churches of the Syrian Tradition on the Petrine Primacy:

7. The presentation of the biblical perspective confirmed a basic common understanding of the NT texts concerning the place and the role of St. Peter in the group of the Apostles, although some different emphases were expressed as to their significance for the life of the Church in the post-apostolic times. Some elements of the interpretation of these texts by the Syriac Fathers were also briefly shared. However, the participants believe that a more systematic study of this patristic interpretation could enrich our insights in the development of the Syriac Tradition on the role of primacy in the Church.

8. During the discussion it became clear that in the liturgical tradition, both in the East Syriac and West Syriac Churches, the special importance attached to the person of St. Peter in the NT is reiterated. He is given the titles of head of the Apostles, foundation of the Church, holder of the keys of the Kingdom, rock and pillar. However, it is understood that these images have also to be seen in relation to the other Apostles and collectively to the Apostolic College. St. Peter is mentioned several times in connection with St. Paul, and the importance of the see of Rome is attached to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome.

9. In the same way both the East and West Syriac canonical traditions stress St. Peter’s position, especially in the canonical collections of Abdisho of Soba in the East Syriac and Bar Ebraya in the West Syriac Churches in the 13th century. Even in the centuries of isolation these Churches did not alter substantially their view of St. Peter.

10. We have to be well aware of the fact that these texts are differently read and interpreted in our different Churches of the Syriac Traditions, because of their historical situation. After the divisions that resulted from the christological controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries, most of these Churches have been compelled by the difficult circumstances to live in isolation from each other. They recognize a regional or patriarchal primacy, but, while not loosing the awareness of belonging to a worldwide communion, the concept of a universal primacy is not part of their living experience. Furthermore, some painful conflicts in the past have been at the origin of feelings of mistrust and fear that render a new understanding of certain texts extremely difficult. So it became once more clear that there are many non-theological, i.e. historical, political and cultural, factors that prevent a better mutual understanding and fuller unity. For instance the participants referred several times to the negative consequences of Western interference in the life of the Churches of the Syriac Tradition.

11. We have to be careful not to draw hasty conclusions according to our own traditions and sensitivities. Catholics should not apply immediately to the present position of the Bishop of Rome each reference to a preeminence of St. Peter, while the Orthodox should not minimize immediately such reference because of their non-acceptance of the Roman primacy in its present form.

These dialogues have been going on since the late 1990's and involves members from the following apostolic Churches:

Assyrian Church of the East
Ancient Church of the East
Chaldean Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Maronite Church
Syrian Orthodox Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Malankara Catholic Church.
There is also an observer from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Sorry, but I lost the link.

Blessings,
Marduk