The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
son of the desert, chchannel, OrbisNonSufficit, SergLts, RusFrog
5656 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 157 guests, and 167 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,877
Posts412,856
Members5,656
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #412837 09/02/15 07:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 426
Lester S Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
.

Well, if by some set of circumstances I was made Pope ("Alexander VII Romanus" to make up for the badness of my"namesake predecessor . . .), this is what "We" would do:

Remove the Filioque from the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds after some solid catechetics as to why the one true Roman Church was returning to the earlier version - just as it returned to the early version of the Liturgy wink

Then "We" would place St Photios the Great into the universal Roman calendar of saints (sic) together with some others, formerly suspected of both heresy and schismatic tendencies.

"We" would then move to have the Latin Church and the World Council of Churches follow the Orthodox Paschalion with respect to the celebration of Easter.

Following these largely symbolic acts, "We" would bring together a theological commission with the most traditionalist Orthodox theologians that could be found.

This commission would then proceed to develop an agreed statement with respect to issues like the "14 later Latin Councils," the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, Original Sin etc.

Once the work of this commission would be completed, We would call a special meeting of the Cardinals to see if a papal declaration could be made to implement the conclusions of the committee.

This would not, as yet, touch the issue of the papacy. But then "We" would move to distinguish between the immediate jurisdictional powers of the papacy within the universal Roman Church and a renewed emphasis on the right of the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches to govern themselves in the SAME way as their Orthodox sister-Churches do.

This means that "We" would abolish the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (probably in advance of our papal coronation date). Ancient rights of the Eastern churches in communion with "Us" would include the right to glorify their own saints for veneration in their own Churches (without the need for the tedious distinctions re: "Blessed" and what-not).

"We" would reserve the right to canonize such Saints for the universal Roman Church and, just so Latin Episcopal Conferences don't get "their" noses out of joint, let them do likewise (they have always had the right to canonize their own miraculous images).

We (the parentheses are getting to be rather tedious) would reserve the right of all Eastern Church primates to be present at all future conclaves whether or not they are Cardinals.

We would also ensure that all matters of internal jurisdictional governance touching the Eastern Churches would be their own sole administrative responsibility without having to report in any way to Us here in the Apostolic See of Rome.

Then, and only then, would We move to convene a union Council with Orthodoxy, to which the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians would be invited, with the view to finally unify us within a dynamic model of ecclesial inter-communion that respects our diverse traditions and Particular identities, with a renewed Petrine Primacy of service in love.

+ Alexandrus PP VII Romanus
Given under my hand in the city of Rome


I can so go with this!

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Lester S] #412839 09/02/15 10:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Bless you, my son! grin

Alex

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #412840 09/03/15 12:17 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 73
M
Messdiener Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Bless you, my son! grin

Alex


Your Holiness,

Where may I apply for an official papal blessing (with parchment/certificate)?

Kissing the Sacred Foot,

Messdiener

Last edited by Messdiener; 09/03/15 12:20 AM.
Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Messdiener] #412847 09/03/15 10:41 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
No need to kiss my foot, my son! (I've just gotten over a foot infection, so I don't want to introduce any further bacteria in the general area anyway . . .).

As I've not been formally invested as pope, I'm not (yet) able to fulfill your admirable request!

You'll have to be satisfied with my regular blessing!

+ Alexander VII PP Romanus

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Mark R] #412859 09/04/15 03:38 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Mark R
Ecumenism went from being a Protestant idea ridiculed by Catholics to a notion much-cherished by Catholics.

It could be argued that the change was really pretty small: many of those Catholics simply came to define ecumenism in terms of other Christians coming into communion with Roman Catholicm. Switching from a negative view of the term to a positive one was a natural corollary.

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #413714 11/02/15 12:05 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 7
K
kamalayka Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 7
I don't wish to offend any Orthodox Christians here, but I honestly believe that the papacy as defined by Vatican 1 makes complete sense, not just from an historical perspective, but from a logical one. Rome can't do anything more. It's up to individual Orthodox Christians whether or not they want to convert to Catholicism, because there's just no way the two views can be reconciled.

At the end of the day, an ecumenic council itself is nothing particularly special. There had been many councils before Nicaea (some of which were considerable in size), and Nicaea itself only had a fraction of the total number of bishops invited present, not to mention that it completely excluded bishops outside of the empire.

So the real question is: what gives a council its teaching authority? After all, if what the Orthodox say is true, that Nicaea was convened by Constantine without the Pope's involvement, then what is it but just a slightly larger gathering than previous councils? An emperor has no spiritual authority.

If the ecumenical council was the invention of a secular leader, then it can't possibly have authority on spiritual matters. But if, as one source states, Nicea was convened at the recommendation of Pope Sylvester, then there's something more to the council's essence.

Considering the ante-nicene period, what objective spiritual authority was there in those days? Even if its nature is disputed today, the Orthodox can agree that the Roman Church was seen as the authority.

I'm no expert in the matter, but every theory of Church authority proposed by Orthodoxy seems absurd. There needs to be a SOURCE of infallibility, and it needs to be something greater and more fundamental to the Church's existence than the ecumenical council, which is nothing but a fourth century novelty anyway. (If Orthodoxy truly wanted to avoid novelty, it would reject ecumenical councils!) This novelty is only acceptable if its foundation is something that has existed since the beginning.

In the Jerusalem Council of the Book of Acts, Peter is the solemn authority. When he speaks, all go silent, and when he finishes speaking, all are silent and the matter is closed to further discussion. If someone wonders why James was in charge of the council and not Peter, I'll refer to John Chrysostom:

"And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world."

So, in my opinion, all councils and gatherings can't depend on "numbers" to gain authority. A council can't rely on "the passage of time" to gain acceptance and "prove" its authencity. That makes no sense. A council depends on an objective source of infallibility. I agree with Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828), when he speaks regarding Rome presiding over the seventh council:

"Without whom (Rome) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they, the Popes of Rome, who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."

And Macedonius (466-516), Patriarch of Constantinople, who declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that "such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible."

For me, nothing else makes any sense whatsoever. It makes no sense to have no objective source of infallibility from which the Church derives its strength. This head is Peter and his successors, because, as St. Macarius of Egypt wrote:

"Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood."

For me, the truth is crystal clear. I firmly believe as St. Maximus the Confessor when he said:

" The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High."

And,

"Rome is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate."

For me, the papacy is the absolute truth. Ecumenical councils, as wonderful as they are, are a novelty in ecclesiastical function and therefore must derive their authority from a preexisting source--otherwise, we'd need to review each insignificant council, because, as we all know, some councils not considered ecumenical were much larger in size and more inclusive than even some of the "official" ecumenical councils.

The decrees of Vatican 1 make perfect sense to me. If one only skips to the definition of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, it may be jarring, but if one reads all four chapters of Session 4, which leads of up the definition of the Dogma, papal infallibility becomes logical and inescapable. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined

(Besides, when has a Dogma ever been a "license" to do anything? Dogmas merely define something. When it comes to practice, the Catholic Church still looks to the past for guidance. Any future threat or heresy is already known by God, anyway, so there's no need for us mere mortals to ever worry about "using" a Dogma.)

For me, the biggest question is why do Orthodox churches care so much about "autonomy"? Orthodox patriarchs always argue among themselves about their authority. What makes autonomy desirable? The ancients were autonomous out of necessity; it wasn't a "desirable" thing. I would go as far as to argue that the whole reason for an ecumenical council was to allow the churches an easy way to communicate! Modern communication makes autonomy a cross that no bishop or church has to carry anymore, but for the Orthodox, it's a prize to be gained. I don't get the appeal. It's Christ's Church, not "Patriarch So-And-So's church."

In the words of John Cassian to the Bishop of Rome:

" Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God."


Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: kamalayka] #413718 11/02/15 12:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,621
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,621
Quote
I don't wish to offend any Orthodox Christians here, but I honestly believe that the papacy as defined by Vatican 1 makes complete sense, not just from an historical perspective, but from a logical one. Rome can't do anything more. It's up to individual Orthodox Christians whether or not they want to convert to Catholicism, because there's just no way the two views can be reconciled.


You have offended in a major way. And it is only your opinion that Vatican I makes "complete sense" from either perspective. What you have to answer is how the definition could be made when a great number of bishops left the council before the vote was taken on that definition of papal infallibility, why it could be defined without a unanimous declaration by the whole number of Catholic bishops, and why papal delegates went out to those who left and demanded that they sign after the fact their allegiance to this dogma.

Quote
At the end of the day, an ecumenical council itself is nothing particularly special.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church would disagree. In Paragraphs 891 and 250, it describes the supreme magisterium--the top teaching authority as the ecumenical council.

Quote
So the real question is: what gives a council its teaching authority?


Something the Orthodox and Catholics agree on: the Holy Spirit working in the council either through the unanimous consent of the assembled bishops or through the lone dissenter. In other words, the Holy Spirit speaks in council through everyone in complete agreement or though the lone voice that says the rest are off track.

You also miss the point of the Emperor calling a council. He facilitated getting the bishops together. Whether the Bishop of Rome now has that authority is an open question in the Christian East. And that has a lot to do with the different governing structures that developed around the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. Like it or not the West developed a monarchial/feudal model and the East a synodal model. And those developments are part of the problem because each side sees its model as the only one possible. Cardinal Humbert didn't help either.

Quote
I'm no expert in the matter, but every theory of Church authority proposed by Orthodoxy seems absurd. There needs to be a SOURCE of infallibility, and it needs to be something greater and more fundamental to the Church's existence than the ecumenical council


You're way off on this one. The ecumenical council was the ONLY source of infallibility until Vatican I. So you're saying that for 1970 years there was no source in the Church for making definitive statements on doctrine or discipline? Then the Christological definitions of the first seven ecumenical councils have no basis in Truth and can be dismissed? then how do we answer the question Jesus posed to Peter and poses to all of us: "Who do you say that I am?"

Citing individual fathers and patriarchs to back up the papal claims is a Western approach to these questions. The east seeks the consensus of the fathers over time as their answer to these questions. Even what the Lord meant when He said to Peter that "on this rock I will build My Church" has been open to interpretation and differing understandings from the beginning. The Armenian Orthodox ordination prayer, for example, speaks of the candidate holding the "faith of Peter"--an interpretation held in the Christian East from the earliest times.

Quote
For me, the papacy is the absolute truth. Ecumenical councils, as wonderful as they are, are a novelty in ecclesiastical function and therefore must derive their authority from a preexisting source--otherwise, we'd need to review each insignificant council, because, as we all know, some councils not considered ecumenical were much larger in size and more inclusive than even some of the "official" ecumenical councils.

The decrees of Vatican 1 make perfect sense to me.


Again, these are your opinions. Remember that opinions are like sweat socks--everyone has two and most of them stink.

If your intention in coming here is to "teach" the Christian East rather than learn to see the world as she sees it, please reconsider your motives.

Bob
Moderator

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #413721 11/02/15 01:13 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 7
K
kamalayka Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by theophan
You have offended in a major way. And it is only your opinion that Vatican I makes "complete sense" from either perspective. What you have to answer is how the definition could be made when a great number of bishops left the council before the vote was taken on that definition of papal infallibility, why it could be defined without a unanimous declaration by the whole number of Catholic bishops, and why papal delegates went out to those who left and demanded that they sign after the fact their allegiance to this dogma.


I didn't mean to argue. I was under the impression that this was a Catholic forum and that the majority of people here was Catholic. I'm not trying to "teach" anything, because I don't consider myself a teacher of any sort. The only reason I responded was because it seemed like the Catholic faith was being slightly undermined on a Catholic forum. Why should a Catholic "demand" anything of the Church of Jesus Christ? That's why I felt compelled to respond to this thread.

It's true that there was some argument at the Vatican 1 Council. But I feel it's ultimately a non-issue; if the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is true, then the Council is only an extension of that authority anyway, and if the Dogma is untrue, then the whole discussion is pointless because then the Catholic faith is a lie.

Originally Posted by theophan
The Catechism of the Catholic Church would disagree. In Paragraphs 891 and 250, it describes the supreme magisterium--the top teaching authority as the ecumenical council.

Something the Orthodox and Catholics agree on: the Holy Spirit working in the council either through the unanimous consent of the assembled bishops or through the lone dissenter. In other words, the Holy Spirit speaks in council through everyone in complete agreement or though the lone voice that says the rest are off track.

You also miss the point of the Emperor calling a council. He facilitated getting the bishops together. Whether the Bishop of Rome now has that authority is an open question in the Christian East. And that has a lot to do with the different governing structures that developed around the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. Like it or not the West developed a monarchial/feudal model and the East a synodal model. And those developments are part of the problem because each side sees its model as the only one possible. Cardinal Humbert didn't help either.


When I said that an ecumenical council was nothing special, I meant it from the Orthodox perspective. As far as I understand, the Orthodox believe an ecumenical council confers upon itself its own infallibility, but my problem with that belief is that, if there's no preexisting source of infallibility to bestow infallibility on the council, then what difference is there between Nicaea and any of the councils held in the 300 years prior to Nicaea? In my opinion, the Orthodox view of ecumenical councils is logically insupportable. Of course I don't doubt that the Holy Spirit works through the ecumenical council. My point was that He only works because of some preexisting authority that gives the council authority. Since the ecumenical council is a fourth century novelty, its binding authority needs to be justified by something that has always been a part of the Church, and that very something, the papacy, doesn't exist according to the Orthodox.

Originally Posted by theophan
You're way off on this one. The ecumenical council was the ONLY source of infallibility until Vatican I. So you're saying that for 1970 years there was no source in the Church for making definitive statements on doctrine or discipline? Then the Christological definitions of the first seven ecumenical councils have no basis in Truth and can be dismissed? then how do we answer the question Jesus posed to Peter and poses to all of us: "Who do you say that I am?"


The Council was the only source of infallibility, but the question Vatican 1 sought to answer was: why? What gives a council its infallibility? Every council in the history of the Church wishes itself to be guided itself by God in some way. What made the ecumenical council so special in this regard? The only answer I can reason out is that a preexisting source of infallibility recognized by all of Christendom bestows upon an ecumenical council its authority. If that's not true, as the Orthodox claim, then any council can be disputed, but if it is true, as the Catholics claim, then the council has always been a vehicle of the papacy. When I look at ante-nicene history, Rome was always the authority. It's may not be clearly expressed in the early church fathers, but it was clearly there.

Of course I don't deny the first seven ecumenical councils and the Christological definitions they taught us. My point is that, without something giving the ecumenical council infallibility, it has no meaning. It's not enough to say that a "large number of bishops" gives a council its infallibility when so many ecumenical councils excluded so many bishops, and it makes no sense to say that an ecumenical council gains authority when its accepted "through the passage of time," because Nicaea was enforced immediately. My question to the Orthodox Church is: what gives an ecumenical council its authority in the first place? Any answer the Orthodox gives can be used to justify any of the Catholic councils of the second millennium, but the only answer the Catholic can give, which is the papacy, automatically dismisses any Orthodox council not recognized by Rome.

Peter was the only one who was able to answer Christ's question, because the answer was not revealed by flesh and blood, but by the Father. I don't understand how this argues against what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by theophan
Citing individual fathers and patriarchs to back up the papal claims is a Western approach to these questions. The east seeks the consensus of the fathers over time as their answer to these questions. Even what the Lord meant when He said to Peter that "on this rock I will build My Church" has been open to interpretation and differing understandings from the beginning. The Armenian Orthodox ordination prayer, for example, speaks of the candidate holding the "faith of Peter"--an interpretation held in the Christian East from the earliest times.


Isn't what you wrote here a contradiction? You say it's wrong to cite individual fathers to support something, and yet you claim that it's ok if the Orthodox do, because the Orthodox cite them as a "consensus."

But isn't citing a list of individual fathers the definition of a "consensus" of fathers?

If not, then what is the correct definition?

And how many of the fathers is necessary to make a consensus? It is 51% 75%?

If I cite, say, ninety-four church fathers, would that be considered infallible? How many church fathers are there in history? When it comes to the issue of papal infallibility, do we cite only those fathers whom we both agree are fathers?

When did "consensus of the fathers" became an infallible source of doctrine? Surely it wasn't during the time of Ignatius of Antioch. I would argue against even Irenaeus believing in it. So, at some point in the third century, perhaps? Before the concept of "consensus of the fathers" or "ecumenical councils" took form, where did a church look to for correct doctrine?

And what's wrong with a "western approach" to anything? Neither the "western approach" nor "eastern approach" is bad. I don't even know what a "western approach" or "eastern approach" is.

I'm not sure what the prayers of the Armenian Orthodox Church has to do with anything. Doesn't everyone hold the "faith of Peter"? The Orthodox Church criticizes a "legalistic" approach, but they use it all the time when it comes defining "the Rock" or "the faith of Peter." Why can "Rock" and "faith of Peter" have more than one meaning in different contexts?

When one looks at the first and second centuries, before the days of "church father consensus" or "ecumenical councils," there had to have been some unshakeable source of doctrine. If there was no source, then no novelty of later centuries certainly can, and if there was a source, then that source had to have been established by Christ and we would be foolish to ignore it.

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #413722 11/02/15 02:32 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
bergschlawiner Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
What would it take for the Papacy to take a step back from "infallibility" and perhaps redefine this claim?

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #413723 11/02/15 03:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 231
S
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 231
The Catholics who are closest to us in other matters (the traditionalists) are also the ones least likely to revise the dogmas of Papal supremacy and infallibility, it seems to me, though perhaps the Vatican II liturgical reforms and the antics of Francis are leading some to question to wisdom of these doctrines.

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: kamalayka] #413728 11/02/15 06:20 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,621
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,621
kamalayka:

Quote
I was under the impression that this was a Catholic forum and that the majority of people here was Catholic. I'm not trying to "teach" anything, because I don't consider myself a teacher of any sort. The only reason I responded was because it seemed like the Catholic faith was being slightly undermined on a Catholic forum.


Your impression is wrong. Please go to Town Hall and read the thread "Who We Are." We began as an Eastern Catholic forum and have grown to be an Eastern Christian forum with membership from many more Christian Churches and groups than just Eastern. Note, we have "grown." We are here to listen to each other and grow from that learning. Our goal is to see the world as our brethren who are not in communion with us see it. And we are committed to the uncomfortable feeling that we may have from these insights.

Quote
It's true that there was some argument at the Vatican 1 Council. But I feel it's ultimately a non-issue; if the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is true, then the Council is only an extension of that authority anyway


You’ve got ecumenical councils and papal infallibility turned around. Anyone who takes your stance has to answer why an ecumenical council stripped a Pope of Rome of his office and only restored him at the same council when he clarified his position.

What you “feel” is irrelevant.” You still fail to make a case for the 1870 years of Church life BEFORE Vatican I. And if those years were without papal infallibility, then what you are saying is that the Faith delivered to the Apostles and defended by countless martyrs is also a lie.

What gives the ecumenical council its authority is the Holy Spirit. Need anyone else? The Holy Spirit is recognized by the Church—paragraph 250 mentions “the sense of the faithful”; the common person in the pew if you will—all levels over time. That is why some of the early councils are recognized as ecumenical and others not. I believe that you would also profit from reading the Circular Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs to Pio Nono that can be found online concerning who is the guardian of the Faith—hint, it isn’t the Pope by himself.

You say that the only answer to what makes a council ecumenical is the papacy. That isn’t even the Catholic position. Better go through the Catholic Catechism for your position. Anything else at this date is not current Catholic teaching.

Quote
When I said that an ecumenical council was nothing special, I meant it from the Orthodox perspective. As far as I understand, the Orthodox believe an ecumenical council confers upon itself its own infallibility, but my problem with that belief is that, if there's no preexisting source of infallibility to bestow infallibility on the council, then what difference is there between Nicaea and any of the councils held in the 300 years prior to Nicaea?


You’ve also got the Orthodox perspective on ecumenical councils wrong—completely. Please check your sources. Here are two articles from respected Orthodox sources—one Chalcedonian and one Non-Chalcedonian. They may help you understand where real Orthodox Christians are at in this area.

The first article is a personal reflection from a bishop of the Church of the East which grew outside the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire--neither Byzantine Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. The second is by Father Thomas Hopko--recently deceased--formerly Dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York.

http://news.assyrianchurch.org/2015...he-unity-of-the-church-of-the-east/12378

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

Quote
When one looks at the first and second centuries, before the days of "church father consensus" or "ecumenical councils," there had to have been some unshakeable source of doctrine. If there was no source, then no novelty of later centuries certainly can, and if there was a source, then that source had to have been established by Christ and we would be foolish to ignore it.


The unshakeable source of doctrine was, and continues to be, the Holy Spirit working within the Church. The consensus you have so little respect for came from the way the Faith was transmitted before it could all be written down. And, given the way communication can change over time as it is passed from person to person, it is definitely the Holy Spirit at work in the Church because the message was essentially the same in places far removed from the Church of Jerusalem where things originated.

And if the papacy was so important that nothing was true without it, how could the Church of the East have been so successful in evangelizing as far as China in the centuries it worked outside the Roman Empire?

Bob

Last edited by theophan; 11/02/15 07:16 PM. Reason: additional comments
Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: kamalayka] #413729 11/02/15 07:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,621
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,621
kamalayka:

Christ is in our midst!!

When one works really hard to understand the point of view of another, he really understands when he can pose the other's position in concrete terms. Some time ago, I posted this on another thread dealing with what future communion ought to look like from an Orthodox perspective.

1. In the event of full communion, there will be no Eastern bishop who will report to the Roman patriarchate for any reason whatsoever. If Rome has something to say to a specific bishop, it can be addressed to the relevant patriarch in whose synod that bishop is a member. In ordinary matters, that will not happen.
2. There will be no issue whatsoever of any Eastern bishop having to answer to anyone but his own synod over who he accepts for priestly formation nor who he ordains. The Eastern Churches are fully capable of making their own decisions in these areas based on their own canons and traditions.
3. In the event of full communion, there will be no issue with any man transfering to another bishop if he feels called to Holy Orders and the decision to accept or reject him will be entirely up to the bishop he approaches without any appeal or interference from Rome. so if a Latin man is rejected because he is married and an Eastern bishop feels he has what it takes and accepts him, there will be no comment from his former Latin bishop or from Rome.
4. In the event of full communion, the Oriental Congregation that has been the Roman Patriarch's medium of dealing with Eastern Churches in full communion up to that time will be abolished. The Pope can feel free to send a delegation to another patriarch to discuss any concerns he may have, but there will be no jurisdictional authority to interfere in the internal workings of another patriarchate unless based on the ancient canons wherein Rome is a last resort for certain limited matters. If Rome wants some sort of regular contact with other patriarchs, an ad hoc committee can be set up, but with no authority other than that granted by the patriarchs involved.
5. In the event Rome does not like these concrete statements of how life in renewed communion will be, then it will be Rome's fault that full communion cannot be achieved.

From an Orthodox perspective, the problem with the development in the Roman Church in the second millenium is that the Pope acts as if the Lord made Peter the overseer of the other Apostles in such a way that they could do nothing without his permission. Such is not the case. While he is supposed to support his brethren in the Faith, he is not their master.

Bob

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #413731 11/03/15 03:10 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Kamalayka, I believe you have a very improper understanding of the dogmas of Vatican 1. What can Rome do to move ecumenism along? It can clarify and quality the papal dogmas, and in the process hopefully correct the wrong interpretations of its decrees that are extant in the minds of many Catholics.

Yes, I am Catholic, and very loyal to the Pope and the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Last edited by mardukm; 11/03/15 03:41 AM.
Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: mardukm] #413732 11/03/15 08:40 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 326
Curious Joe Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 326
Kamalayka,

I too am Catholic (Eastern - Byzantine Rite), and agree with Marduk.

I recommend you consider what theophan (Bob) has offered in his most recent post.

You may also want to research some of the work of the North American Catholic-Orthodox Theological Consultation. The put together a white paper on this subject worthy of consideration.

Blessings,
Joe

Re: What can Rome do to move ecumenism with Orthodoxy along? [Re: Curious Joe] #413733 11/03/15 08:42 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 326
Curious Joe Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Curious Joe
Kamalayka,

I too am Catholic (Eastern - Byzantine Rite), and agree with Marduk.

I recommend you consider what theophan (Bob) has offered in his most recent post.

You may also want to research some of the work of the North American Catholic-Orthodox Theological Consultation. The put together a white paper on this subject worthy of consideration.

Blessings,
Joe


Sorry, got the order wrong (no offense intended). It is the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3