P
Peter_J
Guest
Fair enough. But, lest our disagreement appear greater than it really is … I suspect it might just be a difference in how you and I understand the phrase “a little flexibility” (emphasis added).
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Yes, pretty much that.
A
Aramis
Guest
Only the Roman. Technically, there are 10 Roman patriarchates, but West Indies is vacant, and the Roman title isn’t used.Really? That’s news to me.How many churches have multiple patriarchs?
See: Patriarch (year enthroned)
Rome: Pope Francis
East Indies: Patriarch Filipe Neri António Sebastião do Rosário Ferrão (2004)
Jerusalem: Patriarch Fouad Twal (2008)
Lisboa (Portugul): Patriarch Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente (2013)
Venice (Italy): Patriarch Francesco Moraglia (2012)
West Indies: Vacant since 1963.
Alexandria: Suppressed 1964
Antioch: Suppressed 1964
Constantinople: Suppressed 1964
Aquileia: suppressed in 1751
Grado: suppressed in 1451
gcatholic.org/hierarchy/patriarchs.htm
J
jman227
Guest
You like to paint the picture as all an RCC problem, but the fact is that neither side is totally at fault and at present East and West are in schism with each other.
How about when Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople in 1053 - a year before the excommunication of Cerularius? Any chance at a formal apology from Orthodoxy there?
The Fourth Crusade was indeed a disaster for the Bride of Christ, but what about the May 1182 “Massacre of the Latins”? The bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time, was wiped out or forced to flee at the hands of Orthodox. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks. Again, any chance at an EO apology?
Moving along…
Any serious ecumenist would tell you that the ONLY issue that really stands in the way for an East-West reunion is the issue of papal primacy. All of the other issues that you name are not issues that should cause a formal schism. That which did not separate the Church in the first millennium cannot separate it today. The filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, priestly celibacy can all stay in for the Western Church and we could still have communion. As for papal primacy in light of V1 and V2 - this is a simple fix that would require a pragmatic Pope (from recent comments made by Francis, he may very well be the one) to recognize that ALL councils of the second millennium were really nothing more than regional synods, thereby only binding on the Western Church. Problem solved… resolve communion in T-minus 5…
T
Tomdstone
Guest
So as you yourself (appear to) admit, it is not the Eastern Orthodox Church which stands in the way of the reunion, but it is the RCC which refuses to yield on the issue of papal infallibility and supremacy.
J
jman227
Guest
It’s really not that simple and earlier I was being a bit cavalier in saying that all it would take is a pragmatic Pope. Have you read through the “Ravenna document” and the ensuing backlash from from some of the ultradox? More importantly, have you read through John Paul 2’s “Ut Unum Sint”? In “Ut Unum Sint” JP2 would note: “This is an immense task…which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not…Church leaders and theologians…engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue with me on this subject?” While many Profestants have responded to “Ut Unum Sint”, only a handful of individual of Orthodox theologians have done likewise. No single canonical Orthodox Church has responded, either through its synod, chief hierarch, or other official entity.
It’s going to take a legit ecumenical council with both Catholic and Orthodox present and signing on to make it stick. We don’t need another Council of Florence union.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You appear to be changing your tune here. Originally, someone said that the Orthodox were stubborn and set in their ways so a reunion could not occur. then I thought that we both agreed, that the problem was the issue of papal infallibility and supremacy and I said that if the RCC showed some flexibility and renounced those papal doctrines and as well renounced the filioque and the doctrines defined after 1000 AD, then a reunion could occur. You seemed to agree with that above, at least the papal supremacy part. Now you are changing your mind. Why should the Orthodox sign up for anything when the West keeps on changing its mind on what is up for compromise and what cannot be compromised.
Once again, I think it is rude to say that the reason a reunion cannot occur now is because of the fact that the Orthodox are stubborn and stuck in their ways. The fact is if you were Orthodox, you would probably say that the RCC was the stubborn one, since it is the RCC that does not want to show any flexibility on the teachings as I mentioned them already. And it would only be necessary to go back to the teachings of the Church as they were before 1000 AD. The RCC accepted the East then, and the RCC was a true Church then. If it was a true Church then, why cannot it just accept and endorse the way the Church was 1013 years ago, and renounce the way it is today, unless it is stubborn?
J
jman227
Guest
Guess you missed the part about me admitting my original post as being cavalier? The “spirit” of my original post was to make the distinction that the Filioque, immaculate conception, etc. don’t matter all that much in the dialogue. Those issues are much less important than the real schism about papal primacy. So disregard my original post’s language and just know what the “spirit” of it was (regardless of how effective it was).
As for my second post; I never said the Orthodox are stubborn and stuck in their ways. That’s just putting words in my mouth. What I mean to say about the matter is that it’s not as simple as the RCC just going back to 1053. It’s probably going to take some real concessions from both Churches. The hypothetical ecumenical council will likely leave the Church unlike what each side is accustomed to today. The reason that its not going to be a “poof - no more papal infallibility and back to 1053 we go” is because each of the Churches are true Churches. Pope Francis said in his recent Jesuit interview: “In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us.”
If the Bride of Christ is to be whole again it will take each side recognizing the other as legitimate and having been led by the Spirit.
As for my second post; I never said the Orthodox are stubborn and stuck in their ways. That’s just putting words in my mouth. What I mean to say about the matter is that it’s not as simple as the RCC just going back to 1053. It’s probably going to take some real concessions from both Churches. The hypothetical ecumenical council will likely leave the Church unlike what each side is accustomed to today. The reason that its not going to be a “poof - no more papal infallibility and back to 1053 we go” is because each of the Churches are true Churches. Pope Francis said in his recent Jesuit interview: “In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us.”
If the Bride of Christ is to be whole again it will take each side recognizing the other as legitimate and having been led by the Spirit.
J
jman227
Guest
Alright, so let’s just start over. I was a bit too cavalier in my original post and then I tried to make sense of it all somewhere in my second post and in my third. I find that nothing I’ve posted was very effective in getting my point across… my apologies. It’s been a long work week, and two kids that keep me up at night also tend to make me a bit tired and grumpy.
So, in a nutshell here is what I mean to say:
The pope responds, “We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us. I want to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document. We must continue on this path.”
I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response. He answers: “We must walk united with our differences: there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus.”
So, in a nutshell here is what I mean to say:
- The filioque, immaculate conception, etc. don’t matter all that much in the dialogue. The number one issue is papal primacy.
- The current exercise of papal primacy is not very effective and really only lends itself to the Western Church. It will take a firm statement by the Pope and the Roman Curia affirming this. Pope Francis is likely our best hope of this happening as it’s clear that he’s quite pragmatic on the issue of how to reconcile Petrine primacy and synodality. What follows is an excerpt from his recent interview with “America Magazine” regarding:
The pope responds, “We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us. I want to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document. We must continue on this path.”
I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response. He answers: “We must walk united with our differences: there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus.”
- It’s not as simple as the RCC just going back to 1053. It’s probably going to take some real concessions from both Churches. The hypothetical ecumenical council needed to heal the schism will likely leave the Church unlike what each side is accustomed to today. After the council and reunion; the Catholic & Orthodox Church will be viewed as being more top/down to the Orthodox and more bottom/up from the Catholic side. The reason that its not going to be a “Poof! No more papal infallibility and back to 1053 we go!” is because each of the Churches are true Churches. Really let this quote of Francis’ sink in: “In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us.”
M
malphono
Guest
Well, I guess I was wrong about that [post=11245272]earlier[/post], but I still don’t see how it applies in practice. Am I missing something?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Just to add a quick comment. I keep noticing this theory of “First Among Equals” it should be easy to show “exactly” where this wording is historically. I don’t remember reading this anywhere?Alright, so let’s just start over. I was a bit too cavalier in my original post and then I tried to make sense of it all somewhere in my second post and in my third. I find that nothing I’ve posted was very effective in getting my point across… my apologies. It’s been a long work week, and two kids that keep me up at night also tend to make me a bit tired and grumpy.
So, in a nutshell here is what I mean to say:
"So I ask: “How can we reconcile in harmony Petrine primacy and collegiality? Which roads are feasible also from an ecumenical perspective?”
- The filioque, immaculate conception, etc. don’t matter all that much in the dialogue. The number one issue is papal primacy.
- The current exercise of papal primacy is not very effective and really only lends itself to the Western Church. It will take a firm statement by the Pope and the Roman Curia affirming this. Pope Francis is likely our best hope of this happening as it’s clear that he’s quite pragmatic on the issue of how to reconcile Petrine primacy and synodality. What follows is an excerpt from his recent interview with “America Magazine” regarding:
The pope responds, “We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us. I want to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document. We must continue on this path.”
I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response. He answers: “We must walk united with our differences: there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus.”
Are both sides prepared to start this dialogue with full trust and open hearts? It’s clear that the RCC is moving in that direction - the writing is on the wall that the Petrine ministry will likely be changing. Are the Orthodox (clergy and laity) also coming to the table with full trust and open hearts? One can hope…
- It’s not as simple as the RCC just going back to 1053. It’s probably going to take some real concessions from both Churches. The hypothetical ecumenical council needed to heal the schism will likely leave the Church unlike what each side is accustomed to today. After the council and reunion; the Catholic & Orthodox Church will be viewed as being more top/down to the Orthodox and more bottom/up from the Catholic side. The reason that its not going to be a “Poof! No more papal infallibility and back to 1053 we go!” is because each of the Churches are true Churches. Really let this quote of Francis’ sink in: “In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us.”
R
Rafkqa
Guest
Well I take great comfort from the meeting of Pope Francis and Patriarch Youhanna Yazig this week. With great men like these I am sure unity is possible… Thankfully they have not rejected unity… Watching them pray together was deeply moving…
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I loved the sight of them praying together too. It was a very powerful and poignant moment. Time almost seemed to stop, huh?
D
dzheremi
Guest
I find your viewpoint on this matter instructive of our differences as communions, Jman. I hope you don’t mind if I share my thoughts as well, even though my communion is probably not the one you’re thinking of when you think of reunion with Orthodoxy.
I’ve written this before, but I think it bears repeating: Orthodox participation in ecumenical dialogues should be to introduce Orthodoxy to the non-Orthodox, to reaffirm our positions before the other churches so that it is clear to anyone who might seek union with us what exactly they would be signing up for (not compromise, saying hello, or anything else). Consider it a kind of high-level catechesis, if you will. Anything else (and there has been plenty of “else” in the last few decades) is ultimately fruitless.
I wouldn’t say that they don’t matter. While Papal primacy is probably the biggest dividing issue ecclesiologically, it is obviously intimately related to the above issues, in that they were (or weren’t, depending on who you talk to) defined infallibly or are considered to have been so, and as such are binding upon those who are in communion with Rome. So if the Orthodox are to be in communion with Rome, it becomes a problem that these are defined as such, since they’re not things that Orthodoxy accepts as true, and our ecclesiology does not permit us to believe in them by virtue of the fact that the Roman Pope has defined them. Most Orthodox I have talked to are much more flexible regarding private opinions (theologoumena), but so long as the RCC will not leave them at that level, yes, these things are problems.
I would say that this does not go far enough. It is not merely a matter of papal primacy not being effective or only lending itself to the Western Church; from my personal perspective, anyway, it is a matter of Catholics and Orthodox having different ideas of what Papal primacy means (and doesn’t mean). Synodality is not something to be “balanced” with primacy; synodality is the ecclesiology of the early Church. Period. Primacy is a matter of recognition of the historical place of Rome in the early Church (see the canons of Nicaea on this; it is a very early tradition, but something different than what the Roman church began to take it to mean arguably starting around the time of Pope Leo I). Primacy was not framed as a form of ecclesiology unto itself until later, and it still isn’t to the Orthodox (i.e., we all agree on the place of St. Peter as foremost among the apostles, but we likewise all disagree with any idea that this grants the bishop of Rome any special powers or extra jurisdictional territories by virtue of his claiming the See of St. Peter…and this is not a modern disagreement, or only since 1054 or whatever).
The Orthodox have nothing to concede in terms of doctrine or ecclesiology.
The quote from Pope Francis is nice, but does not say anything regarding ecclesiology. We can and do recognize and affirm that the Holy Spirit works as He may, but what exactly does this say about the ecclesiology of either side?
Better relations between the communions is certainly a good thing, but let’s not get carried away with things. If I get along with my Roman Catholic friends, this is good for all of us, but does not move our churches any closer to one another. Feelings are feelings and doctrine is doctrine and, God-willing, never the twain shall meet.
I’ve written this before, but I think it bears repeating: Orthodox participation in ecumenical dialogues should be to introduce Orthodoxy to the non-Orthodox, to reaffirm our positions before the other churches so that it is clear to anyone who might seek union with us what exactly they would be signing up for (not compromise, saying hello, or anything else). Consider it a kind of high-level catechesis, if you will. Anything else (and there has been plenty of “else” in the last few decades) is ultimately fruitless.
W
Wandile
Guest
Because its made up…
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Please show me where anyone ever claimed that you said that the Orthodox were stubborn and stuck in their ways.
G
gus
Guest
Christains are faced with a duel threat of a renewed Islamic threat coupled with the constant secular attacks that ate sliienating our young. Folks were being killed in big numbers right now not centuries ago.
The historic Churches in the East are facing extinction. Both those in communion and those not. To the enemy any dead Christain is welcome.
Yet were still debating every tiny point.
Reread how the overwheming Christains population of Egypt was overcome by far smaller numbers Learn the lessons of the past.
The historic Churches in the East are facing extinction. Both those in communion and those not. To the enemy any dead Christain is welcome.
Yet were still debating every tiny point.
Reread how the overwheming Christains population of Egypt was overcome by far smaller numbers Learn the lessons of the past.
T
thequietsinger
Guest
I really didn’t want to be brought back into this, but seeing as I was quoted in two posts, I guess I have been…
It may contradict my other posts, but you are right. However, it is stubbornness from both sides. I only said what you quoted because that is the views of all the Orthodox I know and have met. The mere mention of “Catholic” makes them rant on and on about how bad they are, half in English, which then transforms into Greek, which I am not fluent enough in to understand completely. The Orthodox nuns are still being raped and abused today by there own religious elders! That is one reason why I don’t want to be a part of any Orthodox religious order; they are not treated well at all, and they are belittled. Please don’t say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” because I witnessed this first hand, alright? Not trying to sound rude here, but I just wanted to point that out.
T
thequietsinger
Guest
I’m not looking to start a fight here or anything, but I said that of my own freewill, and before, from what I looked at, he/she ever posted anything about it. And that just relates back to another post. I’m sure it isn’t all, but from the Orthodox I know and have met before, that is why I wrote that. I am sorry for not being as clear as what I should have been. Please forgive if I have made any mistakes or have said anything incorrectly, as I can assure you I did not mean to.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
It’s OK. We are just discussing the possibility of a reunion. To me, it doesn’t seem likely that it will happen anytime soon, but once again, that’s just an opinion. thanks.
- Status