|
1 members (1 invisible),
264
guests, and
21
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 |
Looks like this time was the antipasta without the Borscht! Next time will be the main course...at east one of several. I wonder if these will be published officially in a single volume. In ICXC, Gordo CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DOCUMENT ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH
VATICAN CITY, NOV 15, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was the final document of the plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The meeting was held in the Italian city of Ravenna from October 8 to 14 under the presidency of Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and His Excellency Ioannis, metropolitan of Pergamo.
The title of the final document is: "Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority."
Commenting on the 46-paragraph-long text in an interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Kasper affirmed that "the document speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity (or synodality) at the local (i.e., diocesan), regional and universal levels. The important development is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have said yes, this universal level of the Church exists and also at the universal level there is conciliarity, synodality and authority; this means that there is also a Primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the bishop of Rome."
"However," the cardinal continued, "we did not talk of the privileges of the bishop of Rome, we merely indicated the praxis for future debate. This document is a modest first step and as such it gives rise to hope, but we must not exaggerate its importance.
"The next time," added the president of the pontifical council, "we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium. Then we must also talk of the second millennium, of Vatican Councils I and II, and this will not be easy; the road is very long and difficult."
The cardinal also commented on the fact that the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church had abandoned the plenary assembly, explaining that "there was an inter-Orthodox problem over the recognition of the autonomous Church of Estonia" about which Moscow and Constantinople take different views.
"This is an inter-orthodox question," he reiterated, "and we cannot interfere; yet we are extremely sad and concerned because it is important to us that the Russian Orthodox Church should also participate in our future dialogue. Hence we cannot interfere but we wish to ask Moscow and Constantinople to do their best to find a solution, a compromise.
"If they wish," the cardinal concluded, "we can also facilitate this solution, either at the bilateral level between Moscow and Constantinople, or at the pan-Orthodox level, but there is not doubt that we want the Russian Orthodox Church to anticipate. It is a very important Church, we do not want to dialogue without the Russians and we wish to work to achieve this aim."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
This is exactly the direction that the dialogue needs to take.
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 11/15/07 04:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
This document produced by the 10th Plenary Meeting of the JIC in Ravenna, Italy, this year will be another reference point, or a footnote, to the "Master Agreement" between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches in the near, or far, future if a re-union is finally forged, as well the Balamand Agreement and the documents produced in the intervening meetings of the JIC.
Each and every document or the totality of these documents as they come out of the successive plenary meetings of the JIC are merely recommendatory in nature.
The document on the Nature of the Church is providential as it prepares the JIC to tackle the contentious issue on the "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome," particularly on what authority inheres in his now accepted role as "protos of the Patriarchs!"
The forthcoming 11th Plenary Meeting of the JIC will be pivotal, indeed!
Amado
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212 |
The full document is here [ vatican.va] (vatican site) It is the original English text of the �Ravenna Document� which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Catholic Church�s teaching.
Last edited by antv; 11/15/07 08:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
The vote was "unanimous" by the members present/remaining, i.e., the remaining/present 13 Orthodox delegations voted unanimously as well as the 15 counterpart Catholic delegation.
The Russian delegation led by Bishop Hilarion of Vienna walked out on the first day of the sessions.
The Bulgarian delegation was again absent. Bulgaria was also absent from the 9th Plenary Meeting of the JIC in Belgrade, Serbia, last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510 |
It is a good document.
May these words be followed by real deeds.
I wonder who the members of this commission are? I would like to nominate them for sainthood.
Peace to every church.
-ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 |
A most interesting document, packed with worth-while ideas; I hope to write a full-scale commentary on it.
But just for a starter, I notice this gem:
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
A most interesting document, packed with worth-while ideas; I hope to write a full-scale commentary on it.
But just for a starter, I notice this gem:
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge I think we should take the full statement into consideration: x x x . A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always “to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas” (Bari Document, n.29). x x x . The filioque seems to be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 |
That clause does not excuse the Filioque - it didn't and doesn't answer any problem, and the Church is quite capable of responding to problems without modifying the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. When the Protestants turned up, the Council of Trent had no particular difficulty in proclaiming the Orthodox Faith without touching the Creed again.
Of course ought always �to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas�. But a local Church cannot modify the Creed.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510 |
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge Not necessarily. Semantics are a wonderful thing when it serves a purpose. It may be possible for the OC and RC to agree on a 'further and better understanding' of the filioue. And the OC agreeing on that 'improved understanding' might qualify (after the fact) for its consent for that version (perhaps under condition that it disappear from use). We may all be very surprised by the gymnastics both sides can do if they want to. -ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
A most interesting document, packed with worth-while ideas; I hope to write a full-scale commentary on it.
But just for a starter, I notice this gem:
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge With respect, Fr. Serge, I don't think Rome considers herself a local church, but rather the voice of the Universal Church. It is a semantic question. Fr. J.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
A most interesting document, packed with worth-while ideas; I hope to write a full-scale commentary on it.
But just for a starter, I notice this gem:
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge With respect, Fr. Serge, I don't think Rome considers herself a local church, but rather the voice of the Universal Church. It is a semantic question. Fr. J. Fr. J., That is, I believe, part of the problem. The Church of Rome is and in fact must be a local Church for it to have an episcopos. The Pope is not a "Universal Bishop" - he is first and foremost bishop of the diocese of Rome. Without this grounding, he cannot properly be head of the college of bishops. That said, the Church of Rome is also the Patriarchal See of the Latin Church as well as the Apostolic See of Sts. Peter and Paul, with the Pope as the direct successor of St. Peter. All three roles inhere in the one Office. The Church of Rome and the Papacy have blurred these distinctions in practice, because of the relative and historical dependency of other Western Sees on this Apostolic See of the Western Empire. Reading some of the blogs on the MP regarding the Tridentine Mass have been very revealing regarding this fundamental failure to draw these distinctions on the part of Latin Catholics. Most of the TLM bloggers say things like "He is the Successor of St. Peter! These bishops need to submit to him!" or words to that effect. Point of fact, the Pope acted not in his role as Successor of St. Peter, head of the college of bishops and teacher of all Christians, but rather in his pastoral care for the Latin Church as its Patriarch. His bishops should submit to his Patriarchal authority in this regard. Quite frankly, I think a return to these distinctions (which were advocated at one point by then, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger) would go a long way in restoring unity. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
A most interesting document, packed with worth-while ideas; I hope to write a full-scale commentary on it.
But just for a starter, I notice this gem:
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge With respect, Fr. Serge, I don't think Rome considers herself a local church, but rather the voice of the Universal Church. It is a semantic question. Fr. J. Fr. J., That is, I believe, part of the problem. The Church of Rome is and in fact must be a local Church for it to have an episcopos. The Pope is not a "Universal Bishop" - he is first and foremost bishop of the diocese of Rome. Without this grounding, he cannot properly be head of the college of bishops. That said, the Church of Rome is also the Patriarchal See of the Latin Church as well as the Apostolic See of Sts. Peter and Paul, with the Pope as the direct successor of St. Peter. All three roles inhere in the one Office. The Church of Rome and the Papacy have blurred these distinctions in practice, because of the relative and historical dependency of other Western Sees on this Apostolic See of the Western Empire. Reading some of the blogs on the MP regarding the Tridentine Mass have been very revealing regarding this fundamental failure to draw these distinctions on the part of Latin Catholics. Most of the TLM bloggers say things like "He is the Successor of St. Peter! These bishops need to submit to him!" or words to that effect. Point of fact, the Pope acted not in his role as Successor of St. Peter, head of the college of bishops and teacher of all Christians, but rather in his pastoral care for the Latin Church as its Patriarch. His bishops should submit to his Patriarchal authority in this regard. Quite frankly, I think a return to these distinctions (which were advocated at one point by then, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger) would go a long way in restoring unity. God bless, Gordo Actually, Gordo, Benedict has moved in the opposite direction. He has renounced the title Patriarch of the West and retained all the titles associated with universal papal jurisdiction. Fr. J.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
A most interesting document, packed with worth-while ideas; I hope to write a full-scale commentary on it.
But just for a starter, I notice this gem:
"A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils".
That clearly implies a rejection of the Filioque!
Fr. Serge I agree Fr. Serge. The Roman Church is simply a "local" sister Church, and one of the five ancient Patriarchal sees, as such she has no authority over any other patriarchal Church, nor does she have the power to alter the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Actually, Gordo, Benedict has moved in the opposite direction. He has renounced the title Patriarch of the West and retained all the titles associated with universal papal jurisdiction.
Fr. J. Padre, I recall reading that the rationale for removing the title had to do with the difficulty of defining "the West" in our contemporary situation. No issue was expressed with the notion of the Pope as a Patriarch. A simple solution would be to refer to him as the Patriarch of the Roman or Latin Church. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
