P
Peter_J
Guest
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=125696
(I considered putting this in the News section, but here seems better.)
Cardinal Kurt Koch Speaks on Ecumenical Dialogue Between Catholic and Orthodox Churches
- Status
(I considered putting this in the News section, but here seems better.)
It will probably appear over there, too. Doesn’t sound like much new, however.
Pray for unity
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
I just hope that the Orthodox are as unbothered (nonbothered?) by the Cardinal speech as you are. I found some of his words a little surprising – although it’s hard to say how much that has to do with the fact that Zenit only gave selected quotes and not the whole lecture.
P
Peter_J
Guest
P.S. I’m thinking particularly of this paragraph:
The phrase “several ecumenical steps that both Churches should take” might lead one to think that what will follow will be slightly more even-handed than what does, in fact, follow. Also, the comment about “inclination towards nationalism” could lead to a response of “Maybe you Catholics should take a closer look at your own track record.”
N
Nicea325
Guest
I can understand your point. However, as you said, we are only reading a small portion of a long dialogue. I really do not think the cardinal was trying to be offensive or disrespectful. And yes…the CC also has to examine its own backyard.
I am all for unity and continue to pray for it.
P
Peter_J
Guest
N
Nicea325
Guest
Why is that?I’m just glad Cardinal Koch isn’t Italian.
R
Rawb
Guest
Personally, I would love to see the Roman Catholics re-emphasize the importance and role of the Pope, but for quite the opposite reason of Cardinal Koch.
It is interesting, also, that a Roman cardinal is allowed to tell us what we should be working on and saying what our ‘big problem’ is, but when Orthodox do that to Roman Catholics, regardless as to what is claimed to be the ‘big problem’, we are told we are “Anti-Catholic” or “Anti-Western” or whatever else.
Other than that I agree with the poster who said this is hardly news.
It is interesting, also, that a Roman cardinal is allowed to tell us what we should be working on and saying what our ‘big problem’ is, but when Orthodox do that to Roman Catholics, regardless as to what is claimed to be the ‘big problem’, we are told we are “Anti-Catholic” or “Anti-Western” or whatever else.
Other than that I agree with the poster who said this is hardly news.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
My first impression: not terribly helpful. First, I disagree with the Cardinal that Catholics need to emphasize the importance of the pope. Catholics have emphasized that all too well for 1000 years or so. Rather, I would suggest the RC church concentrate on restoring within its ranks the understanding of the papacy (Bishopric of Rome) that prevailed in the early and patristic church: first among equals, with some unique prerogatives, and a symbol of unity, but not the be-all, end-all it came be in the West.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright, but I won’t attempt a full explanation, I’m just going to give an example: John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Oh, I am in total agreement. I was so happy the pope Francis I is from Argentina.It was about time. Yes, some say he is of Italian origin,but nonetheless, he is still from Latin America and Hispanic.
S
steve_b
Guest
Re: the Early and Patristic Church
The pentarchy (5 heads of equal importance), and 1st among equals, are concepts developed in the East.
Then, pope Benedice XVI wrote
- In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
- The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Tonight I decided to check and see whether any news sources have released a fuller version of the interview in the last few weeks, but apparently none have.
N
neokarny
Guest
It is true that Orthodoxy’s understanding of each local church’s Catholicity seems irreconcilable with the Catholic model, which further accentuates the break over the role of primacy.
The two-fold hit of “more papacy, Orthodox nationalism sucks” seems a bit one-sided for “ecumenical steps.”
The two-fold hit of “more papacy, Orthodox nationalism sucks” seems a bit one-sided for “ecumenical steps.”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
There are some missing pieces here. We believe that the true faith must be present. We do not believe in a legalistic validity of Sacraments like the RCC. So a bishop who schisms or falls into heresy cannot celebrate the Eucharist, thus there is no local Church there. Whereas the West believes that “once a priest, always a priest” so anyone who is ordained a bishop or presbyter can just go off anywhere and validly celebrate the Eucharist even after they have been defrocked and excommunicated. So while we see that every local Church is a full and complete Church, this local Church must be professing the Orthodox faith.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
He grew up in an Italian neighborhood and spoke Italian most of his life.Oh, I am in total agreement. I was so happy the pope Francis I is from Argentina.It was about time. Yes, some say he is of Italian origin,but nonetheless, he is still from Latin America and Hispanic.
N
neokarny
Guest
Then what do you think of the Macedonians? Have they lost sacramental grace just because of human politics between them and Serbia?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Do you think it is too soon for somebody who was just Chrismated yesterday to make a pronouncement whether an entire Church has lost grace or not?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Can you give an example of what “a legalistic validity of Sacraments like the RCC” is?
Schism and heretic are two totally different scenarios that apply to the constitutions of the Church and cannot be grouped in the same category. A schismatic bishop can celebrate the Eucharist until the schism outcome determines the bishop’s fate of church communion and validity. A Heretical Bishop unless he repents, becomes ex-communicated. In both severe negative outcomes these bishop’s remain bishops without their faculties to exercise their espiscopacy within the Church.
No, the West believes that what God has joined together via His Sacraments such as Holy Orders “let no man put asunder”. Do the Orthodox actually believe they have the power to put asunder what God has joined together? Talk about infallibility in the extreme and primacy of man over God. If Orthodox can do this, you win infallibility and the primacy.
That’s not true Constantine as it pertains in the West. The faculties of the excommunicated bishop or priest have been removed and cannot exercise them within the Church. A perfect example of this exists within Protestantism. In the East, the excommunicated have not broken with apostolic succession and clarification is being met by Peter to bring his brethren back to the faith, it may take another few centuries, but what is time to God? Those with valid Holy Orders and apostolic succession, the Pope has no power to remove what God has joined, only Peter is commissioned by Jesus himself to bring them back.
Peace be with you
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
That when the motions of a Sacrament is performed (matter, formula, minister), then the Sacrament is there. This means a bishop who leaved the Catholic Church can still validly ordain (case in point, Old Catholics), and that validly ordained priests and bishops can still celebrate the Eucharist validly (case in point, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist of many other Churches whom they deemed to have a valid priesthood, like the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the numerous breakaway groups from the Roman Catholic Church).
Excommunication and schism are the same thing when talking to a bishop (an individual layperson cannot schism). When you are excommunicated, you are not in communion with anybody from whom you are excommunicated. Thus you are in schism with them.
Heretic just means that you are guilty of teaching doctrine contrary to the established true faith. Schism is a break for various reasons. There are schisms because of doctrinal differences, and this is where the other side is condemned as a heretic. And there are schisms from political or other non-doctrinal matters.
But the West’s view of “once a priest always a priest” has no scriptural basis. The passage that is always quoted, “you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,” refers to the priesthood of Christ, not of individual bishops and presbyters. In Orthodoxy there is only one priesthood, Christ’s. Various passages attest that Jesus is the only High Priest. Bishops and presbyters are extensions of Christ’s priesthood (actually according to Peter 1, all of us are members of the Royal Priesthood, all baptized Christians that is), and thus if a bishop of priest leaves the body of Christ, they lose the ability to exercise the priesthood of Christ.
There are no faculties in the West to celebrate the Eucharist. A priest can celebrate Mass anytime he wants. There are faculties to “licitly” celebrate the Eucharist, but a priest always celebrates the Eucharist validly. Otherwise, how do you explain the SSPX whom the Vatican themselves declared to not have an active ministry in the Church, yet everyone agrees their Masses and Eucharist are valid?
In the Orthodox Church, the “right” to celebrate the Eucharist belongs to the bishops alone. Presbyters get the antimension as a sign of a bishop’s permission for them to celebrate the Eucharist. No antimens, no Eucharist.
- Status