Cardinal Kasper to meet with Russian Orthodox Patriarch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hesychios said:
You are “interpreting” a bit too much, methinks.
Click to expand...
And I think Alethiaphile’s post is indescribably courageous. He doesn’t agree with most of what I post about the Orthodox. In fact, I don’t believe he’s openly agreed with me on anything at all. Perhaps he doesn’t even agree precisely with what I posted here. Nevertheless, what he stated is accurate. Archbishop Hilarion doesn’t have the moral authority to limit hope.
 
tdgesq said:
Archbishop Hilarion doesn’t have the moral authority to limit hope.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Archbishop is limiting hope; in fact, he states: “We will not unite but we can learn to be allies and partners. We should not be rivals, we should be Christians who may differ in certain theological intricacies but have practically the same ideas about morals and social values.” I think he still sees a possibility for unity, but it will not be just yet and the road is likely still to be long is his point.
 
tdgesq said:
For you to take the most conservative voice of Orthodoxy and say “gee, no surprise because the Vatican won’t budge” is the height of ignorance.
Click to expand...
I can just see Cardinal Kaspar saying that in one of his meetings with the Orthodox.

Or not. :rolleyes:
 
That’s your opinion. Many Catholics and many Orthodox would disagree with you.

True, but so are the ECs.

God bless,
Peter.
 
tdgesq said:
Archbishop Hilarion doesn’t have the moral authority to limit hope.
Click to expand...
Neither do you or I, but we all have opinions, and I have seen the exact same sentiment expressed by Latin Catholics here in the past.

Patriarch Bartholomew once said that the Latin church and the Orthodox church are “Ontologically different” and people didn’t bat an eye. But it means essentially the same thing as what Archbishop Hilarion has recently stated. It does not prevent him from talking to the Pope and vice versa, however.

We as churches are very, very far apart. Sometimes it looks quite like two different religions. I have seen Latin Catholics express that same sentiment on CAF many times, they have a point.

The early church did not have a structure like the Latin church is advocating, that’s quite new. It was not a corporate unity (to use modern business legal terminology) it was more like a collection of strategic partnerships, or something like a cartel, or confederation of autocephalic churches. All one has to do is read the church history and that becomes readily apparent.

Even dioceses operated differently: until the local kings and lords got hold of it, the local dioceses elected their own bishops and asked neighboring bishops to preside, Metropolitans (all regional) had to approve.

Rome insists upon a new corporate model of structure, and makes it a mortal sin to deny. Apologists here try to promote the fiction that it was always that way. Since we know that it was not, the Petrine Office (if that is what we are to call it) must have had different prerogatives than is claimed today. It did not do then much of what it claims the exclusive privileges of doing now.

So you claim that there is no authority to limit hope? For Orthodox that hope is the return of your church, Pope and all, to Holy Orthodoxy and a return to your Orthodox roots! That would be Christian unity, no corporate merger required or ever needed.

It seems that Archbishop Hilarion, being a practical man, has just about written you guys off as lost for good. I have not.
*
Michael*
 
Hesychios said:
Neither do you or I, but we all have opinions, and I have seen the exact same sentiment expressed by Latin Catholics here in the past.

Patriarch Bartholomew once said that the Latin church and the Orthodox church are “Ontologically different” and people didn’t bat an eye. But it means essentially the same thing as what Archbishop Hilarion has recently stated. It does not prevent him from talking to the Pope and vice versa, however.

We as churches are very, very far apart. Sometimes it looks quite like two different religions. I have seen Latin Catholics express that same sentiment on CAF many times, they have a point.

The early church did not have a structure like the Latin church is advocating, that’s quite new. It was not a corporate unity (to use modern business legal terminology) it was more like a collection of strategic partnerships, or something like a cartel, or confederation of autocephalic churches. All one has to do is read the church history and that becomes readily apparent.

Even dioceses operated differently: until the local kings and lords got hold of it, the local dioceses elected their own bishops and asked neighboring bishops to preside, Metropolitans (all regional) had to approve.

Rome insists upon a new corporate model of structure, and makes it a mortal sin to deny. Apologists here try to promote the fiction that it was always that way. Since we know that it was not, the Petrine Office (if that is what we are to call it) must have had different prerogatives than is claimed today. It did not do then much of what it claims the exclusive privileges of doing now.

So you claim that there is no authority to limit hope? For Orthodox that hope is the return of your church, Pope and all, to Holy Orthodoxy and a return to your Orthodox roots! That would be Christian unity, no corporate merger required or ever needed.

It seems that Archbishop Hilarion, being a practical man, has just about written you guys off as lost for good. I have not.
*
Michael*
Click to expand...
Odd. I’ve read history and I’m still Catholic, just as orthodox as ever. I’ll agree that there wasn’t this ultramontanistic approach in the early Catholic Church that many Latin Catholics today ignorantly expound upon. However, it was not anarchy as you would like us to believe. Albeit, I’m sure you would never use that word, and perhaps it is too strong. Yet, you cannot deny that Rome had a sort of pre-eminance about it from the other churches at was looked to as the seat of Orthodoxy by the other Bishops and Patriarchs.

Read for example what some of the Assyrian hierarchs have written about this recently or what the Syrian Orthodox have to say about the role of St. Peter’s See. There’s a good article on the subject here.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
However, it was not anarchy as you would like us to believe. Albeit, I’m sure you would never use that word, and perhaps it is too strong.
Click to expand...
Not too strong…completely innapropriate and insulting to the entire church. You misrepresent history with one pregnant word.
Harpazo said:
Yet, you cannot deny that Rome had a sort of pre-eminance about it from the other churches at was looked to as the seat of Orthodoxy by the other Bishops and Patriarchs.
Click to expand...
I could never doubt it.

However it had no universal jurisdiction, and did not administer the rest of the church. And it did not even have Augustine…yet. That took five hundred years.

Rome truly was an Orthodox church once, and we look to see that once again someday.

But it lost it’s ancient mandate…we would have to see about how to restore that.
Harpazo said:
Read for example what some of the Assyrian hierarchs have written about this recently or what the Syrian Orthodox have to say about the role of St. Peter’s See. There’s a good article on the subject here.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
Click to expand...
This is tiresome.

The bishops of Rome did not in fact administer the Assyrian church or any other in the first centuries, outside of it’s own Metropolitanate in central Italy.

Michael
 
Hesychios said:
The bishops of Rome did not in fact administer the Assyrian church or any other in the first centuries, outside of it’s own Metropolitanate in central Italy.
Click to expand...
But the question isn’t “what” the Bishop of Rome did. The question was, what has always been the Bishop of Rome’s “authority”.

We cannot say that just because a certain authority was not excercised, that the authority, therefore, didn’t exist back then.
The world was a far different place in the first 4 centuries after Christ than it was afterward. I think that those changes point to the reason why a primacy in Rome is seen moreso in the later centuries rather than the earlier ones.
 
Hesychios said:
Neither do you or I, but we all have opinions, and I have seen the exact same sentiment expressed by Latin Catholics here in the past.

Patriarch Bartholomew once said that the Latin church and the Orthodox church are “Ontologically different” and people didn’t bat an eye. But it means essentially the same thing as what Archbishop Hilarion has recently stated. It does not prevent him from talking to the Pope and vice versa, however.

We as churches are very, very far apart. Sometimes it looks quite like two different religions. I have seen Latin Catholics express that same sentiment on CAF many times, they have a point.

The early church did not have a structure like the Latin church is advocating, that’s quite new. It was not a corporate unity (to use modern business legal terminology) it was more like a collection of strategic partnerships, or something like a cartel, or confederation of autocephalic churches. All one has to do is read the church history and that becomes readily apparent.

Even dioceses operated differently: until the local kings and lords got hold of it, the local dioceses elected their own bishops and asked neighboring bishops to preside, Metropolitans (all regional) had to approve.

Rome insists upon a new corporate model of structure, and makes it a mortal sin to deny. Apologists here try to promote the fiction that it was always that way. Since we know that it was not, the Petrine Office (if that is what we are to call it) must have had different prerogatives than is claimed today. It did not do then much of what it claims the exclusive privileges of doing now.

So you claim that there is no authority to limit hope? For Orthodox that hope is the return of your church, Pope and all, to Holy Orthodoxy and a return to your Orthodox roots! That would be Christian unity, no corporate merger required or ever needed.

It seems that Archbishop Hilarion, being a practical man, has just about written you guys off as lost for good. I have not.
*
Michael*
Click to expand...
Oh Michael, I love all of the fictions listed above. They make for an interesting fairy tale.
 
Michael descripted preciselly what is going on. Living in a country with officially 70-80 % orthodox, but in fact slightly few understanding what is that, I very much support Michael’s words. People, believe me, if any really believers in that orthodox church, most of them go to Catholic church or to any protestant convention. orthodox priests do not behave properly, they never gather as ours, for spiritual exsersies, nobody teaches them how to behave. there are not any children educational groups. nothing. constantly that leads to the fact that that church is fading down. the main reason is that in all communistic years, it was forbidden to be christian and second - materialistic ideas, got very strong roots in the society. how is possible that church to develop ! in the same time we believe the Faith is immortal ! so, either any slow acceptance of Pope sovereignity by the official authorities of orthodox church and acceptance of the orders, or that will not exist in one generation. at the moment, only very old people attend the ceremonies, slightly undesrtanding their Faith, but some of them, with real Holly spirit in them.
 
I’m quickly losing hart with the Eastern Orthodox. I find them with no desire for unity (disobeying Christ in that act) they are blinded by made up difference between East and West. They are always at war with each other. Maybe its time for our Eastern Catholic bothers to officially take over their respective See.
 
Chellow said:
I’m quickly losing hart with the Eastern Orthodox. I find them with no desire for unity (disobeying Christ in that act) they are blinded by made up difference between East and West.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate please, instead of just making drive-by posts?
 
Chellow said:
…Maybe its time for our Eastern Catholic bothers to officially take over their respective See.
Click to expand...
Why you’re on your way toward sedition? :confused: :rolleyes: We dont believe the differences to be “made up” or unimportant- and if you do, oh well. If you’re losing patience either toughen up or occupy yourself with other concerns.
 
Chellow said:
I’m quickly losing hart with the Eastern Orthodox. I find them with no desire for unity (disobeying Christ in that act) they are blinded by made up difference between East and West.
Click to expand...
From what I read, they are only asking for Rome to make some minor changes and Rome refuses to accomodate them.
 
bobzills said:
From what I read, they are only asking for Rome to make some minor changes and Rome refuses to accomodate them.
Click to expand...
Such as? Perhaps you could provide a list since this is the third time in the thread you’ve made that claim.
 
Chellow said:
Just look at the quotes of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev to Mikhail Serdyukov in Voices from Russia and what they are doing to Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu
Click to expand...
Maybe I read the wrong one, but I didn’t see anything uncharitable from Bishop Hilarion. As for Metropolitan Nicolae, would you be OK with a Catholic bishop giving communion to, say, Anglican bishops?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top