A
Anastasia13
Guest
Is it true that the Balamand Declaration has no bearing upon the life of the Church, nor is it an authoritative document?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vico
Guest
It is a commission announced in 1979 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I. Any “agreed texts produced by the international dialogues are issued on their own authority and are not binding on the churches they represent”. +
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue (Catholic-Orthodox) has had twelve sessions to date. The focus of the last four meetings, after 2000, has been authority in the Church and the role of the Bishop of Rome. But it does seem that Uniatism is the blocking issue currently, since participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the sessions is desired. In November 2011 Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion (of Volokolamsk) reminded that discussion of the issue of the unia was a precondition for return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the dialogues.
During USSR:
1980 (Patmos/Rhodes), 1982 (Munich), 1984 (Crete), 1987 (Bari), 1988 (Valamo), 1990 (Friesing)*
After USSR (25 Dec 1991):
1993 (Balamand), 2000 (Emmitsburg), 2006 (Belgrade), 2007 (Ravenna)**, 2009 (Paphos), 2010 (Vienna)
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue (Catholic-Orthodox) has had twelve sessions to date. The focus of the last four meetings, after 2000, has been authority in the Church and the role of the Bishop of Rome. But it does seem that Uniatism is the blocking issue currently, since participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the sessions is desired. In November 2011 Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion (of Volokolamsk) reminded that discussion of the issue of the unia was a precondition for return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the dialogues.
During USSR:
1980 (Patmos/Rhodes), 1982 (Munich), 1984 (Crete), 1987 (Bari), 1988 (Valamo), 1990 (Friesing)*
After USSR (25 Dec 1991):
1993 (Balamand), 2000 (Emmitsburg), 2006 (Belgrade), 2007 (Ravenna)**, 2009 (Paphos), 2010 (Vienna)
- Uniatism topic
** Russian delegation walked out of the meeting (protest to presence of Estonian delegation).
A
Anastasia13
Guest
Then what is the point of them if they have no authority and won’t necessarily change a thing after the meetings for it ends?It is a commission announced in 1979 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I. Any “agreed texts produced by the international dialogues are issued on their own authority and are not binding on the churches they represent”. +
V
Vico
Guest
From the Commission in 2000:Then what is the point of them if they have no authority and won’t necessarily change a thing after the meetings for it ends?
The Commission sees the need for further study of the theological, pastoral, historical and canonical questions related to this issue. It understands well the complexity of the problems that are to be solved and at the same time the importance of this dialogue for the Churches. Despite all the difficulties, the Commission hopes that through this process it will be able to develop further its quest for full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, a process which has already made notable progress in the plenary meetings of Munich (1982), Crete (1984), Bari (1986 and 1987) and Valamo, Finland (1988). This year, 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Joint International Commission celebrates the 20th anniversary of the beginning of its work at Patmos and Rhodes in 1980. It is a beautiful opportunity to thank God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - for what has been accomplished together during these two decades.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
I dont think after 1000 years there will suddenly come ‘one day’ or ‘second’ where WALLA the churches enter into communion againThen what is the point of them if they have no authority and won’t necessarily change a thing after the meetings for it ends?
I dont think God will wave a magic wand and suddenly the churches will be untied again
its not uncommon for Orthodox christians to be all against these meetings,joint prayer services, statements and dialogues…
T
theistgal
Guest
Agreed; I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding on the Catholic side of how an agreement with the Orthodox would have to work. It’s not a “top-down” church, so even if all their Patriarchs were to agree to reunite, it wouldn’t happen if the people rejected it.I dont think after 1000 years there will suddenly come ‘one day’ or ‘second’ where WALLA the churches enter into communion again
I dont think God will wave a magic wand and suddenly the churches will be untied again
its not uncommon for Orthodox christians to be all against these meetings,joint prayer services, statements and dialogues…
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
Dont the laity trust their Leaders?Agreed; I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding on the Catholic side of how an agreement with the Orthodox would have to work. It’s not a “top-down” church, so even if all their Patriarchs were to agree to reunite, it wouldn’t happen if the people rejected it.
Cant they follow them and trust that they know what is good for the Church?
How many Orthodox reject their leaders and even break communion with them creating break away groups
If its good enough for an Orthodox bishop to develop better relations with Rome why isnt it good enough for the laity?
One EO priest said to me that too many people think their the next Mark of Ephesus trying to save the church from ‘heretical’ ecumenism and a ‘false union’ with Rome
A
Anastasia13
Guest
I still don’t understand why there would be a joint commission that didn’t do anything of any authority. Is the Balamant Statement a hypothesis for future talks? What value is it?
A
Anastasia13
Guest
As I understand it, Orthodox leaders are accountable to as well as responsible for their laity. The accountable part is like if a leader says something completely crazy, the people don’t have to wait for a higher up church leader or something to correct him before they reject it. The church as a whole won’t go wrong, but neither is it just a matter of no one is the church leadership is going to teach contrary to truth. That’s just my take though and I am a semi-recent convert.Dont the laity trust their Leaders?
Cant they follow them and trust that they know what is good for the Church?
How many Orthodox reject their leaders and even break communion with them creating break away groups
If its good enough for an Orthodox bishop to develop better relations with Rome why isnt it good enough for the laity?
One EO priest said to me that too many people think their the next Mark of Ephesus trying to save the church from ‘heretical’ ecumenism and a ‘false union’ with Rome
I don’t know much about the rest of what you said.
V
Vico
Guest
“…the Commission hopes that through this process it will be able to develop further its quest for full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches…”I still don’t understand why there would be a joint commission that didn’t do anything of any authority. Is the Balamant Statement a hypothesis for future talks? What value is it?
A
Anastasia13
Guest
So by getting together and writing statements of no real baering, we can reach unity? Why isn’t this at least suggestions?“…the Commission hopes that through this process it will be able to develop further its quest for full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches…”
V
Vico
Guest
There is not need to be negative for hope does not require a certainty. And we know God can accomplish what mere mortals cannot. It is a Pontifical Council initiated by Bl. Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople in 1979.So by getting together and writing statements of no real baering, we can reach unity? Why isn’t this at least suggestions?
Due to the talks, and based upon statements made by the Orthodox, a useful document was written: “General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in the Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)”.
That is very positive.
A
Anastasia13
Guest
Is that one at least a suggestion if not authoritative? In what way is this useful?There is not need to be negative for hope does not require a certainty. And we know God can accomplish what mere mortals cannot. It is a Pontifical Council initiated by Bl. Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople in 1979.
Due to the talks, and based upon statements made by the Orthodox, a useful document was written: “General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in the Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)”.
That is very positive.
N
neokarny
Guest
I tend to think that dialogues like these are important for laying a foundation upon which to base relations. Of course these aren’t authoritative or binding, but they do educate both sides on their findings, and pave the way for later (possibly more authoritative) actions.
Take the EO-OO dialogues, for example. The various Agreed Statements have no authority in, and of, themselves, but they educate both communions regarding shared beliefs and help to dispel misconceptions. They facilitate later positive relations through improved understanding, and help promote pastoral agreements such as those between the Syriac and Antiochian Churches (see here).
But keep in mind that these statements can be fully rejected by one, or all, of the churches being represented. The theologians and clergy acting as representatives can be theologically compromising, and hurt the dialogue process itself. I think that the dialogues can be most effective when the representatives remain true when expressing their faith tradition, because otherwise it promotes misunderstanding on all sides.
Take the EO-OO dialogues, for example. The various Agreed Statements have no authority in, and of, themselves, but they educate both communions regarding shared beliefs and help to dispel misconceptions. They facilitate later positive relations through improved understanding, and help promote pastoral agreements such as those between the Syriac and Antiochian Churches (see here).
But keep in mind that these statements can be fully rejected by one, or all, of the churches being represented. The theologians and clergy acting as representatives can be theologically compromising, and hurt the dialogue process itself. I think that the dialogues can be most effective when the representatives remain true when expressing their faith tradition, because otherwise it promotes misunderstanding on all sides.
V
Vico
Guest
It is not an official statement. There are both general principles and practical directives.Is that one at least a suggestion if not authoritative? In what way is this useful?
You can read more about it here:
cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=81&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=US&pageno=4
A complete list of documents for the Commission are here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html#Documents
A
Aramis
Guest
Several of the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider the sobor, not the hierarchs, the final authority of the church.Dont the laity trust their Leaders?
Cant they follow them and trust that they know what is good for the Church?
The Catholic Church deems a sobor inferior to, and subordinate to, the synod - it’s advisory, not authoritative. The Slavic Orthodox consider the Sobor to be authoritative… and while the hierarchs supposedly form an upper house that can’t be overruled, it’s clear from past performance that the bishops seldom vote against the vote of the laity and lesser clerics present.
Further, it’s a practical factor issue… if the majority of the synod comes into union, but the faithful reject it, it takes only 2 bishops to establish a new rump synod which will get the majority of the faithful.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Agreed; I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding on the Catholic side of how an agreement with the Orthodox would have to work. It’s not a “top-down” church, so even if all their Patriarchs were to agree to reunite, it wouldn’t happen if the people rejected it.
theistgal can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you are reading far too much into a statement that was purely hypothetical.Dont the laity trust their Leaders?
In actually point of fact, the Orthodox laity and hierarchy are very much on the same page regarding dialogue with Catholics.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Do you think there were no-point to your priest giving a homily in church yesterday?Then what is the point of them if they have no authority and won’t necessarily change a thing after the meetings for it ends?
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
i hope your right buttheistgal can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you are reading far too much into a statement that was purely hypothetical.
In actually point of fact, the Orthodox laity and hierarchy are very much on the same page regarding dialogue with Catholics.
Not the ‘traditionalists’
scroll down-
docstoc.com/docs/5257427/AN-ENCYCLICAL-CONCERNING-THE-BALAMAND-STATEMENT-A-WARNING-TO
i dont believe Mt Athos are too pleased either
i left mainstream Orthodox for traditionalist groups myself long ago and noticed others doing the same because of ecumenism
even in the mainstream people and even priests were saying they will break with the church when and if there is formal union with the Catholics
A
Anastasia13
Guest
It edifies and instructs the people. Although not an absolute authority, he is an authority worth listening to.Do you think there were no-point to your priest giving a homily in church yesterday?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.