www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Uniate to Orthodox to Uniate

Below is an excerpt from the Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople (from the Vatican, 7 December 1987):


"We renew before God our common commitment to promote the dialogue of charity in every possible manner, following the example of Christ in nourishing his Church and surrounding it with the solicitude of his charity (cf. Eph 5:29). In this spirit, we reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would or could be perceived as a lack of respect."

I would greatly appreciate the source for the quote Apotheoun gave:


As to the subject of this thread. I've gone back and forth between both communions: BC to EO, EO to BC (in a RC parish), and am now going back to EO (LONG story that!)

The RC priest who received me back to the Catholic Church (in January 2000) initially discouraged me from seeking a formal return via Confession. He was willing to give me the Sacraments as an Orthodox Christian. I did, however, re-enter the Catholic Church via Confession.

In my journey back to Orthodoxy, I will be also be received back via Confession. My wife is currently a catechumen and will be chrismated on March 7th (Sunday of the Cross during Great Lent). I will be received back that day as well. I think the choice of date fitting as it was on September 14th (Feast of the Elevation of the Cross) that I was led back to visit my old Orthodox parish. While there, I felt I was hit by a spiritual 2 x 4 to come home. Glory to God! So, to be received back into Orthodoxy on the Sunday of the Cross is quite fitting, I believe.

Please do not interpret this post as triumphalistic. This is my journey and I feel I can share it here as the Byzantine Forum is a very special place for me. If I offend anyone, that was not my intent. I love and pray for all my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

"I sense some unhappiness with Pope Benedict's choice of Cardinal Kasper as head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity."

Pope Benedict didn't choose him. John Paul II did. And he'll be out soon enough, being 76. Apparently his replacement is not far around the corner.

"Extra ecclesia nulla sallus just doesn't mean what you think it means. It hasn't actually been interpreted in that manner for more than a century."

What do you think I think it means? That no one outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church can be saved? Try again.

Alexis

So are you saying that Pope Benedict did not choose to leave Cardinal Kasper in his position? How did he remain as head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity without Pope Benedict's blessing?

I'm not sure I am all over the place or that the concepts aren't related. Common celebration of the Eucharist is not close with protestants because the Catholics regard them as being heretics. They regard the Orthodox as merely having defects, not as being heretics.



Hopefully you don't expect me to say in one of my posts that Orthodoxy has defects! However, as I noted above, but deliberately used euphenisms in my original post, the Catholics view the Orthodox as having defects, which seems to be an indisputably better thing than being heretics at least, and seems to indicate that they have the true faith in a defective form rather than a wrong faith in a wrong form.

All of this is of course grossly off topic, and has been debated ad infinitum before elsewhere. The really interesting question would seem to me to be, Alexis, are you seriously suggesting that the friend of the OP who became Orthodox endangered his Salvation in so doing?

If so that is deeply disturbing to me. I recall a story of a monk of Mt Athos (the name escapes me) who became deeply distressed that his elder did not pray for the souls of non-Orthodox. "Love demands that we must" he said.

If on the other hand this is a discussion in speculative theology and doesn't necessarily impinge on the state of the soul of the individual mentioned in the first post, may I take the liberty of suggesting that it is perhaps best carried on in another thread?

I think StuartK is trying to express what has elegantly been expressed to me in the words "we must resist the temptation to believe that the charismatic or mystical boundaries of the church are the same as her canonical ones".

Let's just say I do not see the Catholic communion as the only visible manifestation of the Catholic Church. Nor do I consider communion with the Church of Rome to be an imperative precondition for being a visible manifestation of the Catholic Church.

Blame Rome itself: once it decreed that true Churches existed outside of the Catholic communion, the rest follows inevitably: The Church is One because Christ is One; one cannot be "a little bit Church", any more than one can be "a little bit pregnant"--it is a binary condition, yes or no. Having said that the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East are all true Churches because they possess a true Eucharist, Rome essentially said that (a) the Catholic Church is bigger than the Catholic communion; and (b) that communion with Rome is not essential to be the Catholic Church.

Now, Rome hems and haws and temporizes, but this is the position it staked out at Vatican II, and from which is has not--indeed, cannot--withdraw. Rome has effectively adopted the notion that "the Eucharist makes the Church", and current Catholic ecclesiology is fundamentally Eucharistic in nature. Rome attempts to maintain the superstructure of its earlier hierarchical and exclusivist ecclesiology, but the connection between the two is increasingly tenuous.

The current ecumenical dialogue is a combination of rear-guard action and face-saving effort as Rome backs down from the medieval understanding of the Papacy into something more consistent with the understanding of the Church of the First Millennium--or, more precisely, the situation that pertained at the end of the 9th century, the last time a robust communion between Rome and Constantinople existed.

In light of this, I think it would be difficult to find any reputable Catholic theologian who would say that communion with the Bishop of Rome is necessary for salvation, or that the Orthodox Churches are in any way incapable of providing for the salvation of its members.

StuartK, that is a good way of looking at it.

Would not Catholics believe that? Certainly the Orthodox (see Saint John Maximovitch for example)have grave doubts about the salvation of any Orthodox who leave the Orthodox Church for Roman Catholicism or any other Church. But naturally it would depend upon the person's level of knowledge and responsibility.

"So are you saying that Pope Benedict did not choose to leave Cardinal Kasper in his position? How did he remain as head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity without Pope Benedict's blessing?"

Todd, you crack me up! I knew that one was coming. Let's be real: we both know that cardinals in positions such as then are almost never "kicked out" upon the election of a new Pope. The Pope almost always simply waits for whomever he wants to replace to reach the age limit. You know that.

Alexis

Dear brother Neil,

Isn't the more inclusive interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus based on the doctrine of invincible ignorance? If so, it would seem the current interpretation of EENS extends back to the days of the NT Church (e.g., among other verses, only those who have heard and rejected will be condemned). I also recall St. Clement of Alexandria, among many other Fathers, explicitly proposing the doctrine of invincible ignorance.

Blessings,
Marduk

Alexis, Cardinal Kasper enjoyed and enjoys the favour and council of both popes. I find no reason to think otherwise. You seem to. Could you elaborate? "We both know", is not enough.

I never said Pope Benedict didn't like Cardinal Kasper. I have no idea if he does or does not. What I said is that we both know that cardinals in such positions are not routinely removed from such positions upon the election of a new Pontiff, but rather enjoy their posts up until the resignation age of 75, and sometimes quite a bit after that. That's all.

Alexis

Bless Fr, I think the Roman understanding is different than that promulgated by the Orthodox hierarchies. This is suggested by the various Catholic documents I and Stuart have alluded to. The question about salvation outside the Church was asked specifically within the context of one moving from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Support can be found for perspectives other than St John Maximovitch's in Orthodoxy too, but one has to look at figures of some controversy such as Florovsky for that.

I would not think that bishops would accept that there are reasons to leave Orthodoxy, without endangering one's salvation, no matter what reasons Florovsky may offer.

BUT..... wait.... it slipped my mind that in the case of marriage to a Muslim man in Serbia an Orthodox woman will leave Christianity and become a Muslim. This is allowed by hierarchs for the sake of the spiritual unity of the family.

I have had no experience of this though in other contexts such as a Buddhist-Christian marriage.