|
0 members (),
321
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
In a previous thread that was closed, Apotheoun stated the following: That being said, it is my hope that in the coming talks between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches this fall, that there will be at least one man among the Orthodox, and preferably more than one, who is of the caliber of St. Mark of Ephesus. Such a man (or men) will be called upon to resist, by the grace of Almighty God, the Roman claims, whether those claims are focused upon the issue of the filioque or on the idea of papal universal ordinary jurisdiction, or any other peculiar theological innovation of the West since the time of the great schism. It is essential that the Orthodox Churches not prize communion with Rome over the truth of the Orthodox faith, and so they must never compromise by accepting Roman claims in connection with papal supremacy, or by accepting any of the other theological novelties that have arisen in the West during second millennium (e.g., the filioque, created grace, the reduction of the three divine hypostaseis to relations of opposition, the notion of doctrinal development, purgatory, etc.).
Communion must be built upon the unequivocal acceptance by all men of the Orthodox faith.
God bless,
Todd Todd, You have often quoted Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) in his Principles of Catholic Theology and his statement: Rome must not require more from the east with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. But let us take this quote in context. How then are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries...(he mentiones the symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI kneeling before the rep of the EP)...Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today... He continues later, after offering the quote "Rome must not...", and mentions Patriarch Athenagoras's designation of the Pope as "successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity". Pope Benedict continues: ...this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millenium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the east would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millenium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the east as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had. I find both the polemical tone of your statement and certain aspects of its contents difficult to reconcile with his position, as well as with your presumed position as a Catholic. Do you recognize the orthodoxy of the West? Or do you place yourself among those who assert that the West with her "Roman claims" has fallen into heresy? I dare say you seem to express yourself somewhat like an anti-Catholic. Am I misreading you here? Does Orthodoxy need to be anti-Catholic? Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
I miss Todd. we are good friends. Can't say much else to add to this topic. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Todd is a good egg, although all my limited correspondence with him has been virtual. I suppose much depends upon how one interprets the word "acceptance". If by "acceptance" he means that the Orthodox must embrace and integrate all aspects of Latin development in their corpus of theology, I would agree with his assertion that this should be opposed (for the most part). If he means by "acceptance" that the Orthodox must acknowledge as orthodox the developments within the West, while still maintinaing their distinct patrimony (which appears to be - at least partially - what Pope Benedict says) then I disagree with his asertion that it should be opposed. If he means by "acceptance" in reference to the Orthodox faith that the West should somehow repudiate as heretical the developments he cited, than I most vehemently disagree. So that is why I am seeking clarification. My first reading seems to have taken it one way, but I am not sure of his meaning. I hope I have clarified my question, in a fuzzy, muddle-headed sort of way.  Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Glory to Jesus Christ! Hello Gordo, I take exception to your statement: I dare say you seem to express yourself somewhat like an anti-Catholic. Am I misreading you here? Does Orthodoxy need to be anti-Catholic? Questioning the Papal doctrines does not make one an anti-Catholic. Hoping or praying for their rectification does not make one anti-Catholic. It seems to me that you are abusing the term. Whether we recognize it or not, placing the Pope above all other bishops in council or out is a discipline of the church, and should be changeable. Making a dogma out of Papal Supremacy was a political masterstroke that locked in the ultramontanist position on the Papacy long after the ultramontanists have faded into the background. I agree with Todd wholeheartedly. He is well aware that the Eastern Catholic churches do not have a strong voice of their own, they are locked into a state of perpetual submission. The Orthodox participants in dialogue must speak out to make the eastern position clearly felt. A strong stance by the Orthodox churches is the only hope for getting the Roman communion on the right track. It would be good for everyone ultimately. This isn't anti-Catholicism, it is anti-ultramontanism. +T+ Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Hesychios:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Hello Gordo,
I take exception to your statement...Questioning the Papal doctrines does not make one an anti-Catholic. Hoping or praying for their rectification does not make one anti-Catholic. It seems to me that you are abusing the term...A strong stance by the Orthodox churches is the only hope for getting the Roman communion on the right track. It would be good for everyone ultimately. This isn't anti-Catholicism, it is anti-ultramontanism. Michael, Two quick points: 1. Do you assert that the current interpretation by Rome of Papal primacy is ultramontane? If so, how? 2. There are many ways to interpret the term "anti-Catholic". One could say that one form of anti-Catholicism is the sort of unthinking and base bigotry displayed by the likes of an Ian Paisley, Jack Chick, etc etc. Then there is the assertion that Western Catholic developments are not orthodox and in fact are heretical. That is another form of anti-Catholicism. I certainly do not intend to say Todd represents the former. My simple question is, does he hold to the latter? That is the reason for my clarifying questions. Unless I am missing something, it hinges upon his meaning of "acceptance". It is one thing to assert a different emphasis theologically while still recognizing an intrinsic complimentarity with, or in the very least not attributing erroneous teaching to, the other side. It is quite another to say one church has gone off the deep end into heresy. That is quite antithetical to Catholic teaching, and, ergo IMHO anti-Catholic. Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by ebed melech: In a previous thread that was closed, Apotheoun stated the following:
That being said, it is my hope that in the coming talks between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches this fall, that there will be at least one man among the Orthodox, and preferably more than one, who is of the caliber of St. Mark of Ephesus. Such a man (or men) will be called upon to resist, by the grace of Almighty God, the Roman claims, whether those claims are focused upon the issue of the filioque or on the idea of papal universal ordinary jurisdiction, or any other peculiar theological innovation of the West since the time of the great schism. It is essential that the Orthodox Churches not prize communion with Rome over the truth of the Orthodox faith, and so they must never compromise by accepting Roman claims in connection with papal supremacy, or by accepting any of the other theological novelties that have arisen in the West during second millennium (e.g., the filioque, created grace, the reduction of the three divine hypostaseis to relations of opposition, the notion of doctrinal development, purgatory, etc.).
Communion must be built upon the unequivocal acceptance by all men of the Orthodox faith.
God bless,
Todd In a 2003 essay, H.E. Professor Johannis Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergomon and Patriarchial Theological Counsellor, noted that during the 20th century, the ideas of Komiakov, Lossky, Afanassieff and Florovsky, Meyendorff, Schmemann have forged a dual axis in the theological debate over universal primacy as an ecclisiastical necessity. Komiakov, Lossky and Afanassieff form what is referred to in the essay as the "democratic" axis, while Florovsky, Meyendorff and Schmemann form a theological axis that speaks to the organic ecclisiastical necessity of a universal primacy. One might see this latter view as a form of Orthodox ultramontanism. Clearly the intra-Orthodox discussions have not progressed far enough to determine what is the position of universal Orthodoxy, much less what it OUGHT to or MUST be. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I think Michael and Todd made some good points. Not being Roman Catholic is not the same thing as being anti-Catholic. Disagreeing with Roman Catholicism and standing up for one's own beliefs is not necessarily being polemical.
But, Gordo made some good points too. And therein makes me wonder if reunion between the Churches will ever take place this side of heaven. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have been split for 1000 years. Each side wants the other to recognize it as orthodox in its development over the last 1000 years. Yet, each side also seems to define itself, at least in part, in how different it is from the other.
It reminds me of a husband and wife who got a divorce because they are different from each other. Irreconcilable differences? Maybe. Or, maybe we just care more about our differences (i.e., pride) than about our love and the unity which our love can allow.
Personally, I would love to see a reconciliation where each side acknowledges the other as orthodox and both return to the status quo ante of recognizing the bishop of Rome as a first among equals. That would be vague, yes; but it would also be practical and charitable, and it would allow both sides to live with each other as one Church, as one family . . . like siblings or spouses should.
Just my two cents.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Elitoft:
In a 2003 essay, H.E. Professor Johannis Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergomon and Patriarchial Theological Counsellor, noted that... IMHO, Metropolitan John Zizoulas is one of the great hopes for eventual reconciliation. His is a mind that is conversant in both traditions, while representing Orthodox positions with such power, beauty and clarity. In my own estimation, both he and Pope Benedict are two of the greatest lights of our time. Gordo "Unite the clans! Unite them!" Braveheart
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by ebed melech: Originally posted by Elitoft:
[b] In a 2003 essay, H.E. Professor Johannis Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergomon and Patriarchial Theological Counsellor, noted that...
In my own estimation, both he and Pope Benedict are two of the greatest lights of our time.
Gordo
"Unite the clans! Unite them!"
Braveheart [/b]I don't know if you've picked up the book of white papers from that 2003 conference on The Petrine Ministry. Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue but it is worth the price of the book for the tiny essay at the end by Met. John. He really highlights Father Alexander Schmemann's organic and Christological understanding of primacy. I miss Father Alexander very much and find myself reading and re-reading his books and essays. He loved his Lord so deeply and it touches all of his work with great beauty. I believe that once the how of primacy is resolved that the difficulties over infallibility will fall into place. Even the more resistant to papal primacy concede that the negative response to infallibility has more of an ecclisiastical root than a theological one. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Eli,
Thanks for the recommendation! I also very much enjoy the writings of Schmemann. After Archbishop Joseph Raya and Bishop Kallistos Ware, Father Alexander Schmemann's works had the greatest influence on me in my Eastward orientation.
I will look for that text. I also picked up a while back a book by Olivier Clement on the primacy. The title escapes me...but I hope to get through it in the Fall.
Pace,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by ebed melech:
Eli,
Thanks for the recommendation! I also very much enjoy the writings of Schmemann. After Archbishop Joseph Raya and Bishop Kallistos Ware, Father Alexander Schmemann's works had the greatest influence on me in my Eastward orientation.
I will look for that text. I also picked up a while back a book by Olivier Clement on the primacy. The title escapes me...but I hope to get through it in the Fall.
Pace,
Gordo We often hear homilies and read essays on the analogs of Eucharist, the Bride of Christ and the sacrament of matrimony, but there's nothing to best Father Alexander's essay on that same subject in Light for the World. That is precisely the essay I was thinking of when I said read and re-read. Olivier Clement's book is You are Peter. An Orthodox Theologian's Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy and you'll likely find it worth the coins. The thing that amuses me is this. The Second Vatican Council, and the codification of the Canons in its aftermath, have given bishops in communion with Rome nearly absolute power and authority, including near-absolute tribunal power over who challenges that power and authority, where, on what grounds, how and before whom. Yet no one seems to mind or think that is undue. No one points to it and questions. When was the last time you heard a bishop refer to himself as a servant of the servants of God? It's really very strange to me. Personally the nearly untrammelled canonical power of bishops is far more terrifying to me than is the dogmatic power and authority of the servant of the servants of God. When was the last time a pope removed seven young priests from a diocese for refusing to stop speaking the truth of Church teaching concerning the sin of militant homosexuality from the pulpit and in the parish hall? Count them. Seven in three years. Gone. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
Eli,
Which priests are you referring to in that last sentence, and which bishop?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
Eli,
Which priests are you referring to in that last sentence, and which bishop? Any one of three Latin rite diocese and bishops over the past 12-13 years with which I am personally acquainted. Depending on which diocese the number of priests might vary. I am on speaking terms with some of the priests in question, not all. In all of the cases that I know personally, there were the requisite three warning letters sent, but no tribunal called. In each case for one of the bishops, he refused to release any of the priests whose faculties were removed. For the rest, you'll have to wait for the book. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Hmmm...so far no interpretation from Todd regarding his statements. Maybe he does not live at ByzCath like the rest of us!  :p That's ok...I'm sure that there are far better things to do on a sunny California day! Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by harmon3110:
I think Michael and Todd made some good points. Not being Roman Catholic is not the same thing as being anti-Catholic. Disagreeing with Roman Catholicism and standing up for one's own beliefs is not necessarily being polemical. John, I agree with you. To be sure, disagreement as to the emphasis one may bring to a particular mystery of faith should be welcome. For instance, I think ultra-montanist readings of Pastor Aeternus are extremely problematic and even heretical, especially insofar as orthodopaxis is concerned. Vatican II helped to correct some of those excesses. I think some of the Latin emphases in popular, artistic, hagiographical and canonical piety surrounding "the souls in purgatory", while based on a fundamental truth (why else would we pray for souls 40 days after their passing), go to such extremes as to be absurd and, possibly, heretical. But again, a difference in emphasis does not by necessity constitute a difference in essence. Returning to my original question, "Does Orthodoxy need to be anti-Catholic?" I offer the 1993 Letter of the Twenty Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos to the Ecumenical Patriarch in response to the Balamand Agreement for consideration. The tone and content of this letter is nothing less than shocking in its animus towards the Catholic Church and her teachings. I will also highlight a section of the letter that may appear familiar to some of us here: Most Holy Father and Despota, in human terms, by means of that joint [Balamand] declaration Roman Catholics have succeeded in gaining from certain Orthodox recognition as the legitimate continuation of the One Holy Church with the fullness of Truth, Grace, Priesthood, Mysteries, and Apostolic Succession.
But that success is to their own detriment because it removes from them the possibility of acknowledging and repenting of their grave ecclesiology and doctrinal illness. For this reason, the concessions by Orthodox are not philanthropic. They are not for the good of either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. They jump from the hope of the Gospel (Col. 1:23) of Christ, the only God-Man, to the Pope, the man-god and idol of Western humanism.
For the sake of the Roman Catholics and the whole world, whose only hope is unadulterated Orthodoxy, we are obliged never to accept union or the description of the Roman Catholic Church as a �Sister Church,� or the Pope as the canonical bishop of Rome, or the �Church� of Rome as having canonical Apostolic Succession, Priesthood, and Mysteries without their [the Papists�] expressly stated renunciation of the Filioque, the infallibility and primacy of the Pope, created grace, and the rest of their cacodoxies. For we shall never regard these as unimportant differences or mere theological opinions, but as differences that irrevocably debase the theanthropic character of the Church and introduce blasphemies.
The following decisions of Vatican II are typical:
* The Roman Pontiff, the successor to Peter, is the permanent and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful.
* This religious submission of the will and mind must be manifested in a special way before the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.
* The Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, by virtue of his office, possesses infallibility when, strengthening his brethren (Luke 23:32) as the shepherd and highest teacher of all the faithful, he declares a teaching through an act of definition regarding faith or morals. For this reason it is justly said that the decrees of the Pope are irreversible in nature and not subject to dispensation by the Church inasmuch as they were pronounced with the collaboration of the Holy Spirit � Consequently, the decrees of the Pope are subject to no other approval, to no other appeal, to no other judgment. For the Roman Pontiff does not express his opinion as a private person but as the highest teacher of the universal Church, upon whom personally rests the gift of the infallibility of the very Church herself and who sets forth and protects the teaching of the Catholic Faith.
* In the course of his responsibility as the vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has the fullest, highest, and universal authority in the Church, which he is always empowered to exercise freely � There cannot exist an Ecumenical Council if it is not validated or at least accepted by the successor to Peter. The convocation, presidency, and approval of the decisions of the Councils are the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff.
Do all of these teachings, Your All Holiness, not fall upon Orthodox ears as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and against the Divine Builder of the Church, Jesus Christ, the only eternal and infallible Head of the Church from Whom alone springs forth the unity of the Church? Do these not utterly contradict the Gospel-centered and God-Man-centered Orthodox Ecclesiology inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do they not subordinate the God-man to man? (BTW: I pulled this quote from Alvin Kimmel's My Road to Rome [ catholica.pontifications.net] . ) Are we to say that acceptance of such a position is necessary to be Orthodox? Unless he says otherwise, Todd appears to assert this. I'm sure that there are others here who might assert the same. Perhaps it is my intuitive nature to look to reconcile apparent opposites rather than to accept extreme positions which exclude alternate views. Even error and sin seem to have the seed of truth and morality for me... (maybe I AM a closet Augustinian...I was, after all, born on his Feast Day!) Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
