Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

[Nine_Two]

You’re right though, I can’t find the Pope explicitly calling it heresy.

However he did commission the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to write a report on it two weeks after he held a meeting with the EP and they found it to be error (document already posted). Since he didn’t censure them, and in fact allowed their report to be published in the official Vatican Newspaper, this is a very strong implication of agreement.

Until you show me something where a pope says that a dual source is the stance of the Church, I’m sticking with the Cardinal Humbert is a heretic stance as strongly implied by the above referenced document.

Edit: The position is declared heretical by the Fourth Lateran Council. Canon Two describes the orthodox position, canon 3 pronounces anathema upon anyone who declares otherwise.

 

[dvdjs]

I’ll take that to mean you don’t want to answer my question.

Just wondering if you have more at stake in this than you’ve let on.

I was typing my reply to Mardukm when you posted, and missed your questions. Your inference is way off mark. In answer: I accept the teachings of the church, and otherwise don’t much care.

I have been sincere with you. I just want people to adhere to real facts that we can agree on. Because I believe that that is the key first step to agreeing on more.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dvdjs,

I disagree with this idea of sensible interpretation.

First, the remarks were presented as plain facts, and were thus part of the flood of misinformation on the net. Moreover, the remarks were more pointed than you allow. There was the idea of “insistence”, and the idea of the bull being a Papal bull. The latter notion has been retracted by nine-two. There was also the flat claim of a finding of heresy by a Pope. I am honestly curious about evidence for the a papal finding of heresy. That is a powerful claim that simply cannot be inferred, however sensibly or speciously, but demands documentation, So far - no pope and no heresy.

Dialogue can be advanced only if we agree to stick to accuracy in objective facts, and clarity in the difference between fact and interpretation. Who knows, once we work out a common historical hermeneutic, as Father Taft suggests, we may find that our interpretations also begin to cohere and we can get beyond the nonsense. I think he is onto to something, and I am happy, in my own little way, to help that vision along.

I interpret your comments as very sensible as well, but you’re free to diasgree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

I was typing my reply to Mardukm when you posted, and missed your questions. Your inference is way off mark. In answer: I accept the teachings of the church, and otherwise don’t much care.

I have been sincere with you. I just want people to adhere to real facts that we can agree on. Because I believe that that is the key first step to agreeing on more.

Fair enough, that happens, but I do question sincerity when you ignore the argument as a whole in place of technicalities. I probably should have double checked whether JPII actually said that or simply implied it, but didn’t feel it mattered for the core argument. In other words you were attacking the text instead of the argument itself. The first step to agreeing on more is listening to what each side is saying, not nitpicking on the way they say it.

If you are content to simply follow whatever the church says, why bother make an issue of it?

 

[mardukm]

Fair enough, that happens, but I do question sincerity when you ignore the argument as a whole in place of technicalities. I probably should have double checked whether JPII actually said that or simply implied it, but didn’t feel it mattered for the core argument. In other words you were attacking the text instead of the argument itself. The first step to agreeing on more is listening to what each side is saying, not nitpicking on the way they say it.

If you are content to simply follow whatever the church says, why bother make an issue of it?

Yes. I interpret that as very sensible, as well. It’s a very Oriental approach.

Blessings

 

[dvdjs]

In other words you were attacking the text instead of the argument itself. The first step to agreeing on more is listening to what each side is saying, not nitpicking on the way they say it.

If you are content to simply follow whatever the church says, why bother make an issue of it?

I am not making an issue of “it”. I am, by choice, making an issue of disregard for accuracy in the posting of ostensible facts. This is not nitpicking. It is the sine qua non any serious dialog.

 

[Nine_Two]

There is no point to continuing this discussion, so I’m just going to say God bless, dvdjs.

 

[Kokomoka]

This is the next plenary meeting between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches, regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome.

interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7723

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7673

I wonder what this will bring about if anything. I realize the role of the Bishop of Rome is not anything like the roles of the Patriarchs are to the Orthodox so I realize this is a quite complex issue.

Lifting up my prayers that major headway is made there!.If the Pope is willing (as the article states) to return to the way the papacy was in the first millenium, I see great progress! My prayer is that unity comes soon!!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Lifting up my prayers that major headway is made there!.If the Pope is willing (as the article states) to return to the way the papacy was in the first millenium, I see great progress! My prayer is that unity comes soon!!

To return to the papacy of the first millennium would require the Catholic Church to abandon several dogmas of their faith. That is not going to happen.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

To return to the papacy of the first millennium would require the Catholic Church to abandon several dogmas of their faith. That is not going to happen.

Maybe the solution is not to abandon dogmas, but to understand them.

Blessings

 

[Nine_Two]

Maybe the solution is not to abandon dogmas, but to understand them.

Blessings

That makes the assumption they don’t contradict, which they often don’t.

 

[Kokomoka]

To return to the papacy of the first millennium would require the Catholic Church to abandon several dogmas of their faith. That is not going to happen.

In Christ
Joe

With prayer, nothing is impossible!

 

[mardukm]

With prayer, nothing is impossible!

It took about 1500 years for the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church to be united on the issue of Christology. So you are right that nothing is impossible with God. At the same time, it is only the spiritual fruit of understanding that will ever unite the Churches, not triumphalistic “you are wrong, I am right” attitudes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bkovacs]

From Byzantine Texas: byztex.blogspot.com/

Met. Hilarion: no breakthroughs in dialogue
Again a “robo-translated” article with all the imperfections that implies. Much of what is written in the native tongue of Churches is slowly translated into English or sometimes not at all. So I post this knowing a better translation might arrive (which I will post later) or one might never appear.
(patriarchia.ru) - As the President of the Department for External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate popular idea several media working document of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church does not reflect the position of the Orthodox parties on the issue of primacy of the Roman bishop, and can only be seen as merely auxiliary material for further work .

Contrary to the assertions of the press, at the meeting of the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission in Vienna, there were no “breakthroughs” made. All the session was devoted to discussion of the role of the bishop of Rome in the 1st millennium. On this subject the steering committee of the Commission had earlier prepared a document discussed in the last year in Cyprus . A draft version of the document “flowed” in the media and has been published.

It was assumed that Vienna will be able to finish the discussion of this document. But nothing happened: It took a lot of time discussion of the status of the text. Orthodox members from the very beginning of the meeting insisted that “the Cyprus document” can neither be formally issued on behalf of the Commission, nor signed by its members. From our perspective, this paper needs substantial revision, but after treatment he may have only the status of “working document” that is merely auxiliary material (instrumentum laboris), which can be used to prepare the following documents, but he will not have any official status.

"The Cyprus paper has strictly historical in nature and, speaking about the role of the bishop of Rome, almost no mention of the bishops of other Local Churches of the first millennium, creating misconceptions about how to distribute power in the early Church. In addition, the document is not clear and precise allegations that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome in the 1st millennium did not extend to the East. It is hoped that these gaps and omissions will be filled in the finalization of the text.

After a lengthy discussion, the Commission decided that the document needed more work and that a final decision on his status will be made at the next plenary meeting of the committee, ie expected in two years. By this time, will be drafted a new document, which will consider the same issues, but only from the theological point of view.

For the Orthodox participants is obvious that the 1st millennium jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was distributed solely to the West, whereas in the East territories were divided between the four Patriarchy - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Bishop of Rome had no direct jurisdiction of the East, despite the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs spoke to him as an arbiter in theological disputes. Data treatment did not have a systematic character and in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the holder of the supreme authority throughout the universal Church.

I hope that in subsequent meetings of the commission the Catholic side would agree with this position, as evidenced by numerous historical evidence.

 

[mardukm]

Both Churches must agree that the legal idea of jurisdiction is foreign to the Apostolic Tradition. Both parties must agree that the notion of “jurisdiction” must be transformed from a legal to a pastoral paradigm - i.e., from the sense of sovereign territory to the sense of care and solicitude.

It is only in that sense that the local and universal pastorships can be properly understood and accepted.

This letter from Met. Hilarion got off on a very wrong foot, to say the least:
“The Cyprus paper has strictly historical in nature and, speaking about the role of the bishop of Rome, almost no mention of the bishops of other Local Churches of the first millennium, creating misconceptions about how to distribute power in the early Church.”

I guess it is rather typical of the Russian Orthodox to view jurisdiction in terms of power. I hope the other EO Churches can stymy these worldly desires from the ROC. We have seen that HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and our current Holy Father have already been willing to conceive of the God-given Petrine office as a pastoral ministry of service. Perhaps two years is a good amount of time before the participants meet again. Judging from the power struggles going on within EO’xy, it is obvious that the legal understanding of jurisidiction is what predominates in that Church. Let’s pray that paradigm dissolves before the next meeting.

Blessings

From Byzantine Texas: byztex.blogspot.com/

Met. Hilarion: no breakthroughs in dialogue
Again a “robo-translated” article with all the imperfections that implies. Much of what is written in the native tongue of Churches is slowly translated into English or sometimes not at all. So I post this knowing a better translation might arrive (which I will post later) or one might never appear.
(patriarchia.ru) - As the President of the Department for External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate popular idea several media working document of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church does not reflect the position of the Orthodox parties on the issue of primacy of the Roman bishop, and can only be seen as merely auxiliary material for further work .

Contrary to the assertions of the press, at the meeting of the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission in Vienna, there were no “breakthroughs” made. All the session was devoted to discussion of the role of the bishop of Rome in the 1st millennium. On this subject the steering committee of the Commission had earlier prepared a document discussed in the last year in Cyprus . A draft version of the document “flowed” in the media and has been published.

It was assumed that Vienna will be able to finish the discussion of this document. But nothing happened: It took a lot of time discussion of the status of the text. Orthodox members from the very beginning of the meeting insisted that “the Cyprus document” can neither be formally issued on behalf of the Commission, nor signed by its members. From our perspective, this paper needs substantial revision, but after treatment he may have only the status of “working document” that is merely auxiliary material (instrumentum laboris), which can be used to prepare the following documents, but he will not have any official status.

"The Cyprus paper has strictly historical in nature and, speaking about the role of the bishop of Rome, almost no mention of the bishops of other Local Churches of the first millennium, creating misconceptions about how to distribute power in the early Church. In addition, the document is not clear and precise allegations that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome in the 1st millennium did not extend to the East. It is hoped that these gaps and omissions will be filled in the finalization of the text.

After a lengthy discussion, the Commission decided that the document needed more work and that a final decision on his status will be made at the next plenary meeting of the committee, ie expected in two years. By this time, will be drafted a new document, which will consider the same issues, but only from the theological point of view.

For the Orthodox participants is obvious that the 1st millennium jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was distributed solely to the West, whereas in the East territories were divided between the four Patriarchy - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Bishop of Rome had no direct jurisdiction of the East, despite the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs spoke to him as an arbiter in theological disputes. Data treatment did not have a systematic character and in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the holder of the supreme authority throughout the universal Church.

I hope that in subsequent meetings of the commission the Catholic side would agree with this position, as evidenced by numerous historical evidence.

 

[Kokomoka]

It took about 1500 years for the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church to be united on the issue of Christology. So you are right that nothing is impossible with God. At the same time, it is only the spiritual fruit of understanding that will ever unite the Churches, not triumphalistic “you are wrong, I am right” attitudes.

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree. Both Churches must come to this with Love, Humility and Forgiveness. I think the on- going talks and meetings is, in itself, something quite hopeful. We need each other. We were never meant to be apart. And it will come in ‘baby steps’…little by little. And it starts with all of us…
Peace and Blessings,
M

 

[josephdaniel29]

Both Churches must agree that the legal idea of jurisdiction is foreign to the Apostolic Tradition. Both parties must agree that the notion of “jurisdiction” must be transformed from a legal to a pastoral paradigm - i.e., from the sense of sovereign territory to the sense of care and solicitude.

Both parties?

It is only in that sense that the local and universal pastorships can be properly understood and accepted.

In Mardukm’s world perhaps.

I guess it is rather typical of the Russian Orthodox to view jurisdiction in terms of power.

Well you guessed wrong.

I hope the other EO Churches can stymy these worldly desires from the ROC.

Are you serious? My friend you should take some time to learn what you are talking about before making silly statements like this on a public forum.

Judging from the power struggles going on within EO’xy, it is obvious that the legal understanding of jurisidiction is what predominates in that Church. Let’s pray that paradigm dissolves before the next meeting.

Blessings

Ok, now it’s official…this is the twighlight zone. :hypno:

In Christ
Joe

 

[Diak]

To return to the papacy of the first millennium would require the Catholic Church to abandon several dogmas of their faith.

Can you be specific? I recall Pope John Paul II of blessed memory speaking of a desire for such a return.

Originally Posted by mardukm
I guess it is rather typical of the Russian Orthodox to view jurisdiction in terms of power.

Well you guessed wrong.

Brother Marduk’s position is entirely the case with the MP; this has been proven most recently in the actions of the MP’s Metropolitan of Odessa in condemning the construction of a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church when he has been silent about the LDS and other openly prosleytizing groups. This is especially egregious considering the UGCC has had a presence in this part of Ukaine not only since the Union but in much greater numbers and organization in the later 20th century when large numbers of UGCC faithful moved or were moved to this area for work in the Soviet military industry.

 

[dcointin]

Both Churches must agree that the legal idea of jurisdiction is foreign to the Apostolic Tradition. Both parties must agree that the notion of “jurisdiction” must be transformed from a legal to a pastoral paradigm - i.e., from the sense of sovereign territory to the sense of care and solicitude.

It is only in that sense that the local and universal pastorships can be properly understood and accepted.

This letter from Met. Hilarion got off on a very wrong foot, to say the least:
“The Cyprus paper has strictly historical in nature and, speaking about the role of the bishop of Rome, almost no mention of the bishops of other Local Churches of the first millennium, creating misconceptions about how to distribute power in the early Church.”

I guess it is rather typical of the Russian Orthodox to view jurisdiction in terms of power. I hope the other EO Churches can stymy these worldly desires from the ROC. We have seen that HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and our current Holy Father have already been willing to conceive of the God-given Petrine office as a pastoral ministry of service. Perhaps two years is a good amount of time before the participants meet again. Judging from the power struggles going on within EO’xy, it is obvious that the legal understanding of jurisidiction is what predominates in that Church. Let’s pray that paradigm dissolves before the next meeting.

Blessings

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has historically defined primacy in terms of legal authority and power, so how else should the Eastern Orthodox understand it?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has historically defined primacy in terms of legal authority and power, so how else should the Eastern Orthodox understand it?

I agree with you insofar as there is a definite presence of the legal, territorial jurisdictional paradigm in the West. This was the Western Church’s reaction to the encroachment of the secular authority in Church affairs. From this constant environment in the West, the siege mentality of the papacy unfortunately carried over in its dealings with the Eastern Church, which is reflected in the language of the decrees on papal prerogatives (“ruling and governing”).

I disagree insofar as the concept of legal territorial jurisdiction developed in the Eastern Churches not only separately (in the form of phyletism), but also much earlier than in the West. The concept of “I am of Paul - I am of Apollos - I am of Cephas” did not begin in the West, but in the East. It began early on with the jurisdictional struggles between Caesarea and Jerusalem.in the fourth and fifth centuries, and developed as Church and State were wed in the East, while the West managed to preserve its independence from the State for the most part. It was only in the second millenium that Church and State were formally wed in the West, and the same inherent problem (the legal, territorial, jurisdicitonal paradigm) with such a union began to exhibit itself in the papal claims.

Basically, the paradigm of legal, territorial jurisidictionalism began as an internal Church struggle in the East, whereas in the West, it began as an overreaction to the secular State. I believe it will be easier for the papacy to divest itself of the legal, territorial, jurisdictional paradigm than for the East to do so. I say that because whereas the papacy has been reacting positively to complaints against monarchical prerogatives since the early 20th cenutry (reflected more fully at V2), there does not seem to be a comparative admission or even awareness in much of the East of the inherent problems of phyletism. What do you think?

Note: Though I oppose phyletism and consider the multiplication of patriarchates as unpatristic, I am also willing to consider that it might be a legitimate development. The Church has always adapted to meet the needs of the people, and granting a People their own patriarchate is not necessarily bad. The problem comes when the national distinction devolves to the “I am of Paul - I am of Apollos - I am of Cephas” mentality. Instead of a pastoral accomodation for the sake of the mental and spiritual growth of the laity, the hierarchs begin to see it as a symbol of their own power (like the MP seems to do).

Blessings,
Marduk