www.byzcath.org
Cardinal Kurt Koch on the Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

10 June 2013
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/52587/

Archbishop Kurt Koch, who since 2010 has headed the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, gave a lecture at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv on June 10 on “Prospects of the Ecumenical Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches" and answered a number of questions.

As stated at the beginning of the lecture by Bishop Borys Gudziak, “unity among the followers of Christ is a priority of different programs that are implemented today by UCU, which also has an Institute of Ecumenical Studies.”

Cardinal Kurt Koch focused on the analysis of the phases and themes of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, stressed the merits of Pope Benedict XVI in enhancing the work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which focuses on the discussion of one of the most painful and key issues of Orthodox-Catholic relations – the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Cardinal Koch explained that "from the Orthodox point of view, the church is present in every local church that celebrates the Eucharist, so each Eucharistic community is a complete church. Instead, from the Catholic point of view, a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete church. Therefore, a basis of the Catholic Church is the unity of separate Eucharistic communities with each other and the bishop of Rome. That is, the Catholic Church lives in the mutual intersection of local churches in one universal church.”

Cardinal Koch also outlined future ecumenical steps, which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches should take. For example, the Catholic Church should “strengthen the argument for the importance of the life and work of the church of the primacy of the pope," and the Orthodox Church should "boldly examine its main ecclesiological problem, namely, autocephaly of national churches and their inclination toward nationalism."

According to the cardinal, “the most important thing is not to lose sight of the goal of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which, at least from the Catholic point of view, can consist only in the restoration of a visible communion of churches.”
The cardinal should have stayed home.
Originally Posted by Tomassus
Cardinal Koch explained that "from the Orthodox point of view, the church is present in every local church that celebrates the Eucharist, so each Eucharistic community is a complete church. Instead, from the Catholic point of view, a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete church. Therefore, a basis of the Catholic Church is the unity of separate Eucharistic communities with each other and the bishop of Rome. That is, the Catholic Church lives in the mutual intersection of local churches in one universal church.”

I think he is referring to the Catechism, sections 832-834. However, it's a BOTH-AND. I think that the words, "a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete Church" is a very sloppy way to say it. We are all parts of one body, and so the fullness (catholicity) of the Church resides both in its parts as well as in their relation to the whole.

Cardinal Koch would have spoken better (IMHO) if he had described that the East and west have complimentary and over-lapping views of Church.
^ Cardinal Koch is in a curial position where his words need to be carefully chosen. I presume, given his location and audience, that they were indeed chosen so.

Repercussions from this speech are already being felt across the Orthodox AND Eastern Catholic communities. He has probably thrown cold water on any meaningful further dialogue in the near term while making fools out of His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan Hilarion for attending Pope Francis elevation. Popes may come and go it seems, but Rome is indeed eternal.

By the way, how can my Eastern Catholic friends continue to reconcile and uphold your belief AND trust in your "sui juris" status when comments by this Cardinal about Eastern Christian ecclesiology, autocephaly and nationalist tendencies (more than a little dig at the UGCC, don't you think?)are so dismissively stated this year and the Prefect of the Eastern Congregation expressed his real feelings about celibacy last year?

It is over a century and nearly a half since the days of Archbishop Ireland and this year is the Seventy Fifth anniversary of Bishop Orestes' consecration. We Orthodox who formerly were Greek Catholics and the modern day Eastern Catholics have come a long way to better understanding, but it seems to me Rome has changed little, if at all.

"Watch your back", it seems would be a good motto. (Please forgive my bitterness and disappointment.)
^ If I feel this way, can you imagine the response from the ultra traditionalists in the Orthodox camp?
Dear DMD,

Yes, Koch should have paid heed to the adage that "It is better to keep silent and have everyone think one is a fool than to open one's mouth - and remove all doubt . . ."

The nationalist dig you rightly point out was also meant to include the national Orthodox Churches - something Rome likes to bring up time and again so as to feel itself to be "superior" as an "international" centre.

It's as if Rome hasn't made any real progress toward addressing Orthodox concerns at all. And does Rome think its dialogue has any credibility when it continues to hang onto the Filioque as if it were a matter of little consequence? It was a big matter at Florence and it still is. Does Rome not consult with its great Eastern Christian professors and experts at all?

Recently, a Ukrainian Catholic Priestmonk of the Redemptorist Order, no less, left a written "testament" just before he died. I will have to translate it into English, but will say now that the gist of his remarks, directed to all Ukrainian Catholics, were that "salvation is only by Orthodoxy."

I will post an English translation of it soon.

Alex
My brother, a member of the Dialogue has said that Pope Benedict once remarked that the Orthodox have moved as close as they can and that the Romans needed to get serious if they wanted the dialogue to move forward.

Perhaps Koch's remarks are the Curia's response to His Holiness? Very, very sad.

I can hear my dido's firm voice in my mind...." Neither to Rome nor to Moscow..Ani do Rim, ani do Moskvi...Ні в Римі, ні в Москву!"
Well, I'm a Latin Rite Catholic and I have some issue with the way he made his statement. The Catholic Church teaches and believes that each Church is fully Catholic, so to say that a 'Eucharistic community is not a complete Church" can only be seen as true within a pretty narrowly nuanced position.

What the heck is a Eucharistic community, but a Church? Then say, Church, Cardinal; Church.

I don't think there is anyone who thinks that the Cardinal's words did anything positive at all.

Hopefully, Pope Francis will address this problem before it gets any worse.
Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by Tomassus
Cardinal Koch explained that "from the Orthodox point of view, the church is present in every local church that celebrates the Eucharist, so each Eucharistic community is a complete church. Instead, from the Catholic point of view, a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete church. Therefore, a basis of the Catholic Church is the unity of separate Eucharistic communities with each other and the bishop of Rome. That is, the Catholic Church lives in the mutual intersection of local churches in one universal church.”

I think he is referring to the Catechism, sections 832-834. However, it's a BOTH-AND. I think that the words, "a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete Church" is a very sloppy way to say it. We are all parts of one body, and so the fullness (catholicity) of the Church resides both in its parts as well as in their relation to the whole.

I don't think that the Cardinal's point was to offer a determination on the status of Orthodox Churches but rather to offer some thoughts on a theological difference between the two traditions in locating the catholic Church in relation to the local or particular church.

I agree very strongly that it would have been helpful to present these different views or tendencies as related and potentially complementary. Moreover, it might have been useful to point out that there really isn't an 'official' Catholic view on the matter--the Cardinal's thoughts are just his thoughts.
Originally Posted by Tomassus
Cardinal Kurt Koch on the Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches



Cardinal Koch also outlined future ecumenical steps, which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches should take. For example, the Catholic Church should “strengthen the argument for the importance of the life and work of the church of the primacy of the pope," and the Orthodox Church should "boldly examine its main ecclesiological problem, namely, autocephaly of national churches and their inclination toward nationalism."

If this fairly represents Koch's gestures toward the future, then it truly is disappointing. To paraphrase: the Catholic Church's main job, it seems, is to better convince the Orthodox that they are right, while the Orthodox should focus squarely on their main problem.

This is plainly condescending, and it is a very surprising, coming from Rome's chief officer for ecumenism. I think all of us who love and long for unity are justly disappointed.
Perhaps asking the Papal Nuncio in Ukraine to be a little more careful in his choice of words would also help .

Quote
When it comes to beauty, the little bit of Byzantine Liturgy which I have experienced in English pales in comparison to Old Slavonic or Ukrainian. No doubt there are some beautiful renditions of the Lord Have Mercy or the Holy Holy or the Lamb of God out there, but how can they compare with some of the Kyries, the Sanctus' or the Agnus Deis which we have in our Gregorian chant treasury, if not amongst the wealth of polyphony at our disposal?

Taken from his response dated28 May 2013, to Fr James' blog , Symposion on " The Language of the Liturgy: speaking God's Kingdom.

RISU [risu.org.ua]

Originally Posted by danman916
Well, I'm a Latin Rite Catholic and I have some issue with the way he made his statement. The Catholic Church teaches and believes that each Church is fully Catholic, so to say that a 'Eucharistic community is not a complete Church" can only be seen as true within a pretty narrowly nuanced position.

What the heck is a Eucharistic community, but a Church? Then say, Church, Cardinal; Church.

I don't think there is anyone who thinks that the Cardinal's words did anything positive at all.

Hopefully, Pope Francis will address this problem before it gets any worse.

Well, believe it or not, I agree with you. However, I also feel that for a canonically Roman Rite Catholic taking on the Byzantine spirituality, such as myself, it just seems like for me, Church Slavonic and the Eastern Tradition just seems easier to catch on to than the Latin language, and most of the Western traditions. Perhaps that's the good thing about Eastern Catholicism, is that anyone that is Latin who feels stronger with Our Divine Lord through a different tradition, and feels they need that change of scenery and spirituality on Sundays and Feast Days, then by all means, just as long as Pope Francis supports it, go for it. I have no regrets joining up with the ByzCath tradition, just as long as becoming more canonically Ruthenian Byzantine won't be too much difficulty... Seems like it's worth the effort.
Originally Posted by Our Lady's slave
Perhaps asking the Papal Nuncio in Ukraine to be a little more careful in his choice of words would also help .

Quote
When it comes to beauty, the little bit of Byzantine Liturgy which I have experienced in English pales in comparison to Old Slavonic or Ukrainian. No doubt there are some beautiful renditions of the Lord Have Mercy or the Holy Holy or the Lamb of God out there, but how can they compare with some of the Kyries, the Sanctus' or the Agnus Deis which we have in our Gregorian chant treasury, if not amongst the wealth of polyphony at our disposal?

Taken from his response dated28 May 2013, to Fr James' blog , Symposion on " The Language of the Liturgy: speaking God's Kingdom.

RISU [risu.org.ua]

Sort of makes you wonder how one gets to be a Papal Nuncio.
1. Open mouth.

2. Insert foot.

3. Smile.
Originally Posted by DMD
^ If I feel this way, can you imagine the response from the ultra traditionalists in the Orthodox camp?
you rang?
One big misstep by Koch and many steps backwards by ecumenically minded Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
Thank you for nothing Cardinal Koch!
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The nationalist dig you rightly point out was also meant to include the national Orthodox Churches - something Rome likes to bring up time and again so as to feel itself to be "superior" as an "international" centre.

I think it was an honest assesment of an acknowledged problem in Orthodoxy. See for instance this recent post from Byzantine, Texas [byztex.blogspot.com]. The Orthodox Churches in the United States and elsewhere are working to resolve problems of overlapping jurisdictions because it's acknowledged by the Orthodox that this is a signifigant ecclesiological problem.
(Furthermore, charity requires us to give as favorable a reading as possible to the Cardinal's words, especially when they are very brief excerpted quotations from what was clearly a much longer set of remarks.)
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Recently, a Ukrainian Catholic Priestmonk of the Redemptorist Order, no less, left a written "testament" just before he died. I will have to translate it into English, but will say now that the gist of his remarks, directed to all Ukrainian Catholics, were that "salvation is only by Orthodoxy."

I will post an English translation of it soon.

Alex

I hope you do get a chance to translate this and post it here soon or in a separate thread. I'm very intrigued by this
Loyalty is apparently rewarded in strange ways by the Vatican.

If the "capo di tutti capo" of the Curia's ecumenical outreach office comes to Kiev and chooses the words he chose in front of the specific audience he addressed, one has to assume they DO NOT REPRESENT just his personal opinion.

Secondly, the ignorant, hurtful and disgusting comments reported from the Nuncio to Ukraine about our Eastern hymnology could have been written by a lackey of Archbishop Ireland or Pope Pius X. If the Italian ambassador said similar nonsense about Ukrainian poetry before an academic symposium in Kiev, he would be run out of town ASAP.

Coupled with Cardinal Sandri' s comments about celibacy how do you expect us Orthodox to react? How much more disrespect can Rome dish out to her loyal Greek Catholic faithful before provoking a reaction? Is the fear of the eastern bear so overwhelming that one would sacrifice their patrimony for promises of "protection"? Ben Franklin's adage comes to mind:"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Sometimes I think that the talk about the UGCC church and the UOCKP may be more than just talk. The Phanar can rightly point to nearly a century of allowing the Rusyns their own path into Orthodoxy without the heavy weight of Moscow to scare the faithful away. Likewise their respectful treatment of the UOCUSA. Strange times indeed.

Finally, the issues confronting jurisdictions and ethnicity in America are not what the Cardinal was referring to. But if so, perhaps he is laying a foundation for the "Patriarchal" unification of ALL Eastern Catholic churches into one Eastern rite, accountable and subordinate to Rome free from ethnic or national boundaries. That does not evidence an understanding of or respect for Eastern ecclesiology or anything remotely resembling respect for the terms of the various unions including Brest and Ungvar.

I don't mean to provoke or offend, but these developments seem not to be a coincidence both preceding and following Pope Benedict's resignation.
Originally Posted by DMD
I don't mean to provoke or offend

I'm Eastern Catholic, and just want to say that your comments do not offend me. In fact, I agree with much of what you wrote.
Originally Posted by DMD
If the "capo di tutti capo" of the Curia's ecumenical outreach office comes to Kiev and chooses the words he chose in front of the specific audience he addressed, one has to assume they DO NOT REPRESENT just his personal opinion.

One can hardly give the full explanation of even his personal opinion from the small quotes contained in this article.

Originally Posted by DMD
Secondly, the ignorant, hurtful and disgusting comments reported from the Nuncio to Ukraine about our Eastern hymnology could have been written by a lackey of Archbishop Ireland or Pope Pius X. If the Italian ambassador said similar nonsense about Ukrainian poetry before an academic symposium in Kiev, he would be run out of town ASAP.
You have misunderstood or construed the nuncio's comments in the worst possible way, but let us set them aside, there is enough other material to talk about here.

Originally Posted by DMD
Coupled with Cardinal Sandri' s comments about celibacy how do you expect us Orthodox to react?

Cardinal Sandri's comments are an excellent example of the problem of not reading with intepretive charity and fuller context. Based on a tiny quote people piled up mountains of outrage. In fact, a better construal supported by people who actually heard the remarks [orthocath.wordpress.com] can be made. Surely those who are being formed for celibacy (and the Orthodox Churches also have celibate clergy) should be formed so as to embrace it!

Originally Posted by DMD
How much more disrespect can Rome dish out to her loyal Greek Catholic faithful before provoking a reaction? Is the fear of the eastern bear so overwhelming that one would sacrifice their patrimony for promises of "protection"?

This is very strage. People do not become or remain Eastern Catholics for "protection."

Originally Posted by DMD
Finally, the issues confronting jurisdictions and ethnicity in America are not what the Cardinal was referring to.

Because you say so? Again we have this: "the Orthodox Church should 'boldly examine its main ecclesiological problem, namely, autocephaly of national churches and their inclination toward nationalism.'"

I have offered one example of the problem of nationalism and ecclesiology. This problem is acknowledged by leaders in the Orthodox Church. You have no reason to assume that this problem, the syndrome of which the US problem is a symptom, is not what he was referring to.

Originally Posted by DMD
But if so, perhaps he is laying a foundation for the "Patriarchal" unification of ALL Eastern Catholic churches into one Eastern rite, accountable and subordinate to Rome free from ethnic or national boundaries. That does not evidence an understanding of or respect for Eastern ecclesiology or anything remotely resembling respect for the terms of the various unions including Brest and Ungvar.

Here, you imagine a terrible scenario an, attribute it to the Cardinal and get outraged about it! This makes no sense.
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The nationalist dig you rightly point out was also meant to include the national Orthodox Churches - something Rome likes to bring up time and again so as to feel itself to be "superior" as an "international" centre.

I think it was an honest assesment of an acknowledged problem in Orthodoxy. See for instance this recent post from Byzantine, Texas [byztex.blogspot.com]. The Orthodox Churches in the United States and elsewhere are working to resolve problems of overlapping jurisdictions because it's acknowledged by the Orthodox that this is a signifigant ecclesiological problem.
It is also equally acknowledged by the Orthodox that neither Pastor Aeternus nor Canon 28 of Chalcedon provide the solution.

Further, the Orthodox realize that this is not a problem in Ukraine. There is only one Orthodox Church there, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Metropolitan Volodymyr, and no overlapping jurisdictions (except some claims by Romania on Romanians in Ukraine, which remain murky even in Romania's claims).

As for the so called "Diaspora," it's a canonical problem, not an ecclesiastical one.
Originally Posted by JBenedict
(Furthermore, charity requires us to give as favorable a reading as possible to the Cardinal's words, especially when they are very brief excerpted quotations from what was clearly a much longer set of remarks.)
LOL. It was from RISA. How do you know that those aren't the most favorable of the Cardinal's remarks?
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by DMD
How much more disrespect can Rome dish out to her loyal Greek Catholic faithful before provoking a reaction? Is the fear of the eastern bear so overwhelming that one would sacrifice their patrimony for promises of "protection"?

This is very strage. People do not become or remain Eastern Catholics for "protection."
LOL. You have heard of the "council" of Florence, no?
Don't we do this every few years. Cardinal WhizBang visits Ukraine and Moscow to improve relations with the Orthodox/Eastern Catholics/Oompa Loompas, etc. Nothing much ever seems to come from it and things remain pretty much the same.
I don't. But you don't know otherwise. So you can't condemn him based on speculation.
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by DMD
How much more disrespect can Rome dish out to her loyal Greek Catholic faithful before provoking a reaction? Is the fear of the eastern bear so overwhelming that one would sacrifice their patrimony for promises of "protection"?

This is very strage. People do not become or remain Eastern Catholics for "protection."
LOL. You have heard of the "council" of Florence, no?

I was speaking to the present day situation, not the situation in the 15th century.
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The nationalist dig you rightly point out was also meant to include the national Orthodox Churches - something Rome likes to bring up time and again so as to feel itself to be "superior" as an "international" centre.

I think it was an honest assesment of an acknowledged problem in Orthodoxy. See for instance this recent post from Byzantine, Texas [byztex.blogspot.com]. The Orthodox Churches in the United States and elsewhere are working to resolve problems of overlapping jurisdictions because it's acknowledged by the Orthodox that this is a signifigant ecclesiological problem.
...
Further, the Orthodox realize that this is not a problem in Ukraine. There is only one Orthodox Church there, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Metropolitan Volodymyr, and no overlapping jurisdictions (except some claims by Romania on Romanians in Ukraine, which remain murky even in Romania's claims).

Well first off, it's silly to say "This is not a problem except where it is..." But second, while the UOC-MP i s recognized as canonical and the UOC-KP is not, the existence of the UOC-KP points to the problem of the questions of ecclesiology and nationality, quite apart from the question of union with Rome. This people in the UOC-KP are still in some sense "Orthodox".

[url=http://byztex.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-americanization-of-orthodoxy.html]As for the so called "Diaspora," it's a canonical problem, not an ecclesiastical one. [/quote]

Well, surely it's an ecclesiastical problem. All canonical problems are ecclesiastical problems. Furthermore, it is, as I said, an ecclesiological problem. Differing views of the role/structure/etc. of the Church lead to different opinions on how the problem should be solved (or even if there is a problem.)
Dear JBenedict,

Cardinal Koch is hardly an authority on the ecclesial situation in Ukraine.

To be charitable does not mean one has to be uncritical. And to be critical, doesn't mean one is uncharitable.

He really should have stayed home as the problems of the situation in Ukraine (without reference to other Orthodox countries) will not be resolved by the Vatican.

Alex
In addition, the idea that there are no national(ist) churches in Roman Catholicism is just silly as well.

We can look into that, but clearly the Cardinal has a reified view of the world (which unfortunatley seems to characterize Vatican ost-politicians).

The problems of national Churches, as the Cardinal indicated, cannot be extrapolated in general.

I know for a fact that he offended a number of church leaders in Ukraine.

Charity begins at Rome, one could say.

The Cardinal's visit was an ecumenical "Koch-up"
JBenedict,

I agree that we must interpret charitably.

I admit that upon rereading the Papal Nuncio's comments, for example, I thought that maybe I had misjudged his words the first time through. Perhaps he had only introduced the Latin liturgy and its English versions to make a connection to a very different subject that he knew much less about, namely Slavonic liturgy, which he said he had only experienced in English versions. Maybe he had meant to make no comparison at all between the Byzantine and Roman liturgies.

Perhaps, there is some further context to Cardinal Koch's remarks that might make them appear in some better light. Nevertheless, in their present context, I do not believe I am being unfair or uncharitable in concluding that they do not appear in a very good light at all.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Cardinal Koch is hardly an authority on the ecclesial situation in Ukraine.
Alex,

He may not be an authority, but as head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, he certainly has access to people who are authorities, and it's his business to consult with them. His failure to do so is not merely a faux pas, but a serious dereliction of duty, and an egregious disservice to the entire people of God. mad

(having expressed angry thoughts here, let me now wish everyone peace!)


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
I admit that upon rereading the Papal Nuncio's comments, for example, I thought that maybe I had misjudged his words the first time through. Perhaps he had only introduced the Latin liturgy and its English versions to make a connection to a very different subject that he knew much less about, namely Slavonic liturgy, which he said he had only experienced in English versions. Maybe he had meant to make no comparison at all between the Byzantine and Roman liturgies.

He clearly didn’t compare the quality of the Byzantine and Roman liturgies. Read his comment [deovolenteexanimo.blogspot.com] carefully. This is the section in question:

"When it comes to beauty, the little bit of Byzantine Liturgy which I have experienced in English pales in comparison to Old Slavonic or Ukrainian. No doubt there are some beautiful renditions of the Lord Have Mercy or the Holy Holy or the Lamb of God out there, but how can they compare with some of the Kyries, the Sanctus' or the Agnus Deis which we have in our Gregorian chant treasury, if not amongst the wealth of polyphony at our disposal?"

He doesn’t say that he only experienced the Byzantine liturgy in English, he said that he had only experienced a little bit of the Byzantine Liturgy in English and that it “paled in comparison to Old Slavonic or Ukrainian [which he had also experienced].” That he had also experienced the liturgy in Old Slavonic and Ukrainian is necessary logically for him to make this comparison. I bet that as nuncio to Ukraine, he’s experienced quite a bit of liturgy in Ukrainian!

The comparison to Roman liturgy is to compare the treasury of Ukrainian and Slavonic liturgical music to the treasury of Roman liturgical music in Latin and say that they are both superior to their English counterparts.

But people are so quick to be offended that they think he’s said something negative about Ukrainian-language liturgy when he has in fact said precisely the opposite, extolling it over English-language liturgy.

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Perhaps, there is some further context to Cardinal Koch's remarks that might make them appear in some better light. Nevertheless, in their present context, I do not believe I am being unfair or uncharitable in concluding that they do not appear in a very good light at all.

Given the radical misunderstandings put forth of both Cardinal Sandri and Archbishop Gullickson’s remarks I don’t see how we can’t refrain from condemning him (and others in this thread have used very harsh terms like “dereliction of duty.”
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Maybe he had meant to make no comparison at all between the Byzantine and Roman liturgies.

He clearly didn’t compare the quality of the Byzantine and Roman liturgies...That he had also experienced the liturgy in Old Slavonic and Ukrainian is necessary logically for him to make this comparison...The comparison to Roman liturgy is to compare the treasury of Ukrainian and Slavonic liturgical music to the treasury of Roman liturgical music in Latin and say that they are both superior to their English counterparts.

Ok, fair enough...I think I was more or less conceding that basic direction.

But that doesn't make Cardinal Koch's comments any more helpful. I am not accusing him of anything, merely responding to the report of his comments. I agree that we should pause and make sure we haven't misunderstood what he said, but I don't believe that that obligation somehow prevents us from forming a critical opinion.
Peace be unto you as well, Father Deacon!

Alex
Amin!
Dear DMD,

I've read and re-read your post and have only one thing to say . . . BRAVO!!

I'll re-read again later today . . .

Alex
Dear desertman,

I have translated it and have created a new thread on Church News with it.

Alex
Originally Posted by JBenedict
But people are so quick to be offended that they think he’s said something negative about Ukrainian-language liturgy when he has in fact said precisely the opposite, extolling it over English-language liturgy.
I've been wondering about that myself. (I'm reminded of the phrase coined by, I think, Dr. Dragani: "Byzantine bitterness".)
A Russian Orthodox priest once told me that he felt it was nonsense to have a Ukrainian language liturgy since that language is "graceless."

The question is why the Vatican didn't send one of their excellent professors of the Christian East who, in fact, know more about Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism than anyone?

Alex
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by DMD
How much more disrespect can Rome dish out to her loyal Greek Catholic faithful before provoking a reaction? Is the fear of the eastern bear so overwhelming that one would sacrifice their patrimony for promises of "protection"?

This is very strage. People do not become or remain Eastern Catholics for "protection."
LOL. You have heard of the "council" of Florence, no?

I was speaking to the present day situation, not the situation in the 15th century.
And there is a difference?
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by JBenedict
I was speaking to the present day situation, not the situation in the 15th century.
And there is a difference?
No, there are many differences. Some that make the situation better, and also some that make it worse.
Originally Posted by Tomassus
Cardinal Kurt Koch on the Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

10 June 2013
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/52587/

. . .

Cardinal Koch explained that "from the Orthodox point of view, the church is present in every local church that celebrates the Eucharist, so each Eucharistic community is a complete church. Instead, from the Catholic point of view, a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete church. Therefore, a basis of the Catholic Church is the unity of separate Eucharistic communities with each other and the bishop of Rome. That is, the Catholic Church lives in the mutual intersection of local churches in one universal church.”

. . .
This is the part of the text that I find truly problematic, because it reveals two very different views of the nature of the Church. The Orthodox hold to a patristic viewpoint, while the Roman Church continues to support the late medieval scholastic viewpoint.

The Eucharistic and Trinitarian ecclesiology of the Church Fathers is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology advocated by the Cardinal in his talk.
I think it might be relevant that our Major-Archbishop/Patriarch Sviatoslav was in Rome Thursday, June 13, and con-celebrating with Papa Francesco at the Domus chapel. I'm sure they had a good chat at breakfast. Perhaps they touched on the Cardinal Prefect's remarks. In any case, on another occasion that day the the pope acknowledged his oversight in not appointing to his advisory committee on reforming the Curia a representative from the Eastern churches. He will soon do so. To those who can go, I look forward to seeing you at OL Conference on Monday!
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by Tomassus
Cardinal Kurt Koch on the Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

10 June 2013
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/52587/

. . .

Cardinal Koch explained that "from the Orthodox point of view, the church is present in every local church that celebrates the Eucharist, so each Eucharistic community is a complete church. Instead, from the Catholic point of view, a separate Eucharistic community is not a complete church. Therefore, a basis of the Catholic Church is the unity of separate Eucharistic communities with each other and the bishop of Rome. That is, the Catholic Church lives in the mutual intersection of local churches in one universal church.”

. . .
This is the part of the text that I find truly problematic, because it reveals two very different views of the nature of the Church. The Orthodox hold to a patristic viewpoint, while the Roman Church continues to support the late medieval scholastic viewpoint.

The Eucharistic and Trinitarian ecclesiology of the Church Fathers is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology advocated by the Cardinal in his talk.

My point exactly and a point which resonates beyond the snippets posted by RISU from the entire address. Even with the totality if his speech, that distinction seems to negate much of the prior emphasis in Rome's recent talks with the Orthodox. We shall see, keep tuned.

© The Byzantine Forum