Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

[prodromos]

Toning it down, I have serious doubts the Orthodox could hold a council to discuss a serious matter of doctrine without relations deteriorating to a state worse than they were at the beginning of the council.

We’ve held many councils (there was one I attended in Thessaloniki recently, represented by most of the Church) and there is nothing of the ridiculous charicature you depict.

I deplore your unwarranted disrespect for the Pope and the papacy generally and the smug, superior attitude you take against my Church even as you ignore the facts of history to promote your version of history.

Dear Ferde, I think you need to take some time to reflect on the attitude displayed generally by Catholics such as yourself before casting stones. There are also many Orthodox who are far better read in history than you imagine yourself to be, and the ‘facts’ of history are not asyou believe them to be.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

We’ve held many councils (there was one I attended in Thessaloniki recently, represented by most of the Church) and there is nothing of the ridiculous charicature you depict.

An ecumenical council?? I don’t think so. You probably attended a meeting closer to a scholarly symposium than to a council.

Dear Ferde, I think you need to take some time to reflect on the attitude displayed generally by Catholics such as yourself before casting stones. There are also many Orthodox who are far better read in history than you imagine yourself to be, and the ‘facts’ of history are not as you believe them to be.

Dear prodromos, the attitude displayed on occasion by me is a response to the attutude displayed by some of your brother Orthodox. Not charitable of me, I admit, but that’s the way it goes.

As to my knowledge of history, I accept your analysis. However, the facts of history, such as the numerous quotations by many Eastern Fathers concerning the primacy of Peter, and their behavior towards the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries of the Church, all of which you have had presented to you many times, are well known to me and to you, too and I don’t imagine them. The fact there was no such thing as ‘The Orthodox Church’ until after the 11th Century is also well known to me and I put it to you, that fact of history hasn’t escaped you, either.

 

[Vico]

That ignores what “ecumenical council” is supposed to mean - a council with universal acceptance.

Of course not, part of being ecumenical means having to stand the test of time, at least that’s the Orthodox perspective.

Source?

By “asserted” you mean invented, right? Pretty sure none of the prior councils were called by popes. The idea that he has an exclusive right is particularly laughable since most (if not all) the previous ecumenical councils had been called by emperors. That Rome acknowledges these councils as ecumenical seems to contradict it being the pope’s exclusive right.

Not “called by popes” rather called general.

In 1075 Pope Gregory VII issued Dictatus papae.
*Item 16: *That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html

Sources on Photius:

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Photius
newadvent.org/cathen/08423c.htm

Canons pertaining to Photius, council of 869-870.

Canon 2 Summary. All the synodal decrees of Popes Nicholas and Adrian dealing with Ignatius and Photius must be observed.

Canon 4 Summary. Photius was never bishop, hence those ordained by him must be deposed.

Canon 6 Summary. Photius is condemned for his diabolical and fraudulent actions in the synod of 867.

Canon 9 Summary. All contracts made by Photius between himself and his adherents before his intrusion into the Constantinopolitan see are null and void.

Canon 13 Summary. For the higher ecclesiastical dignities, clerics attached to the cathedral of Constantinople shall be chosen, and not strangers or outsiders.

Canon 21 Summary. Secular authority shall not treat disrespectfully or seek to depose any patriarch; nor shall anyone direct against the pope of Rome any libelous and defamatory writing. Any secular power attempting to expel any patriarch, shall be anathematized.

Canon 25 Summary. All clerics ordained by Ignatius and Methodius but who even now are adherents of Photius and refuse to submit, are deposed and deprived of all sacerdotal functions.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const4.html

 

[josephdaniel29]

An ecumenical council?? I don’t think so. You probably attended a meeting closer to a scholarly symposium than to a council.

Ferde, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

As it stands today we are on the eve of the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. There have been four pre-conciliar preparatory meetings and the the final preparatory meeting is slated to occur in 2011 in Chambesy. The Council itself is posited for late 2012 to early 2013. The most recent pre-conciliar meeting took place last year and involved representatives of all the autocephalous Churches.

My brother you should never underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit. All of this is taking place without the prompting of an infallible leader with the authority to command obedience from all. I wonder, After the Council where will Catholics shift their criticism to?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Nine_Two]

Not “called by popes” rather called general.

In 1075 Pope Gregory VII issued Dictatus papae.
*Item 16: *That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html

Again, that’s not asserting a right, that’s called making it up. There is nothing in the history of the Church, East or West, prior to this which said anything else. To assert means to take control over a right which one already had.

Sources on Photius:

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Photius
newadvent.org/cathen/08423c.htm

Canons pertaining to Photius, council of 869-870.

Canon 2 Summary. All the synodal decrees of Popes Nicholas and Adrian dealing with Ignatius and Photius must be observed.

Canon 4 Summary. Photius was never bishop, hence those ordained by him must be deposed.

Canon 6 Summary. Photius is condemned for his diabolical and fraudulent actions in the synod of 867.

Canon 9 Summary. All contracts made by Photius between himself and his adherents before his intrusion into the Constantinopolitan see are null and void.

Canon 13 Summary. For the higher ecclesiastical dignities, clerics attached to the cathedral of Constantinople shall be chosen, and not strangers or outsiders.

Canon 21 Summary. Secular authority shall not treat disrespectfully or seek to depose any patriarch; nor shall anyone direct against the pope of Rome any libelous and defamatory writing. Any secular power attempting to expel any patriarch, shall be anathematized.

Canon 25 Summary. All clerics ordained by Ignatius and Methodius but who even now are adherents of Photius and refuse to submit, are deposed and deprived of all sacerdotal functions.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const4.html

I was asking for a source on where he agreed to apologize and all that other fun stuff you were claiming. What the robber council said was never in question.

 

[sidbrown]

Fortunately, we do have the background debates and speeches of V1 available, and they readily reveal that V1 did not intended to promote or propose an Absolutist Petrine view.

I don’t exactly see that since we have from VI: I think it is Session 4 : 18 July 1870:chapter 3:
“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Maybe not. Prove it to me. The subject I introduced was ecumenical councils. Contradicting me, prodromos said he had recently attended a council, meaning, I had to assume since that was the subject, an ecumenical council. I disagreed and still do.

As it stands today we are on the eve of the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. There have been four pre-conciliar preparatory meetings and the the final preparatory meeting is slated to occur in 2011 in Chambesy. The Council itself is posited for late 2012 to early 2013. The most recent pre-conciliar meeting took place last year and involved representatives of all the autocephalous Churches.

This is the first I’m hearing about this council and I rejoice in it. Does it have anything to do with the reunification talks with my Church?

My brother you should never underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit. All of this is taking place without the prompting of an infallible leader with the authority to command obedience from all. I wonder, After the Council where will Catholics shift their criticism to?

I guess we’ll have to shift it something else. There are certainly enough resources to draw from.

Believe me, Joe, there is no one who relies on the guidance of or who appreciates the universal power of the Holy Spirit than me. I trust we share those sentiments.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Vico]

Again, that’s not asserting a right, that’s called making it up. There is nothing in the history of the Church, East or West, prior to this which said anything else. To assert means to take control over a right which one already had.

I was asking for a source on where he agreed to apologize and all that other fun stuff you were claiming. What the robber council said was never in question.

This is what you said originally: “By “asserted” you mean invented, right? Pretty sure none of the prior councils were called by popes. The idea that he has an exclusive right is particularly laughable since most (if not all) the previous ecumenical councils had been called by emperors. That Rome acknowledges these councils as ecumenical seems to contradict it being the pope’s exclusive right.”

As before, the topic is not the right to call a council, but to call a council a general council, and that the council of 869-870 was not called a general council until by Pope Gregory VII. So there is no contradiction.

The quoted source uses the word assert, which has a few meanings as you can see from Merriam-Webster:

1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
2 a : to demonstrate the existence of <assert his manhood — James Joyce>
2 b : posit, postulate — assert oneself : to speak or act in a manner that compels recognition especially of one’s rights

The first source I gave for the Photius issue states (Pope John VIII page) that “This at length he agreed to do on certain conditions. But, as Photius failed to observe them, he was solemnly condemned by the pope (881).”

 

[prodromos]

prodromos;7128013:

Ferde Rombola;7127950:

Toning it down, I have serious doubts the Orthodox could hold a council to discuss a serious matter of doctrine without relations deteriorating to a state worse than they were at the beginning of the council.

We’ve held many councils (there was one I attended in Thessaloniki recently, represented by most of the Church) and there is nothing of the ridiculous charicature you depict.An ecumenical council?? I don’t think so. You probably attended a meeting closer to a scholarly symposium than to a council.

No council was considered to be “Ecumenical” until years, even decades after the fact. Nor does a council necessarily need to be “Ecumenical” to be generally accepted by all Churches in communion. Your comment, “An ecumenical council??”, makes no sense at all.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Maybe not. Prove it to me. The subject I introduced was ecumenical councils. Contradicting me, prodromos said he had recently attended a council, meaning, I had to assume since that was the subject, an ecumenical council. I disagreed and still do.

What do you mean by “ecumenical councils”? There have been numerous meetings of all the autocephalous Churches and numerous councils that have general acceptance in the Orthodox world.

This is the first I’m hearing about this council and I rejoice in it. Does it have anything to do with the reunification talks with my Church?

Not particularly although from what I understand ecumenism in general will be addressed.

 

[prodromos]

Dear prodromos, the attitude displayed on occasion by me is a response to the attutude displayed by some of your brother Orthodox. Not charitable of me, I admit, but that’s the way it goes.

It is not only you but is prevalent among many Catholics, this forum’s treatment of Orthodox being a classic example. Have you considered that your defence might also be that of some of my brother Orthodox?
That aside, it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our theology and ecclesiology are wholly consistent. To suggest we are somehow ‘missing a lung’ or ‘not in Communion with Peter’ is wholly inconsistent with our theology and ecclesiology. We’re not missing any body parts because it is an impossibility for Christ’s body to be divided. Nor are we short an Apostle. I’m sorry if that comes across as a “smug, superior attitude” but it would be false of us to state otherwise than what our Church teaches.

As to my knowledge of history, I accept your analysis. However, the facts of history, such as the numerous quotations by many Eastern Fathers concerning the primacy of Peter, and their behavior towards the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries of the Church, all of which you have had presented to you many times, are well known to me and to you, too and I don’t imagine them.

Catholic apologetics is highly selective, subjective and context lite

The fact there was no such thing as ‘The Orthodox Church’ until after the 11th Century is also well known to me and I put it to you, that fact of history hasn’t escaped you, either.

That is the name which stuck . It doesn’t change the fact that the Church after the 11th century is the same as the Church before the 11th century. To quote Shakespeare, “a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”

 

[prodromos]

The first source I gave for the Photius issue states (Pope John VIII page) that “This at length he agreed to do on certain conditions. But, as Photius failed to observe them, he was solemnly condemned by the pope (881).”

This is a fabrication which developed after Rome retroactively reinstated the robber council of 869 and removed reference to the council of 879. There is no evidence that Pope John condemned Photius, rather they remained in full communion.

As late as the eleventh century, only seven councils were recognized as ecumenical in the Roman Catholic Church.[4] Then, in the time of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), canonists who in the Investiture Controversy quoted the prohibition in canon 22 of the Council of Constantinople of 869-870 against laymen influencing the appointment of prelates elevated this council to the rank of ecumenical council.[4]

4. ^ a b c Francis Dvornik, “Which Councils are Ecumenical?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 3(2), 1966, pp. 314-328

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

 

[GaryTaylor]

After reading everything I could possibly find on the 4th week of Septs meetings. I’d be very, very surpized if this isn’t a reality in the near future.

Whatever speculation remains is really that. This is in the hands of all Gods Elect. Obviously there is a tremendous respect all the way around with all involved. And if the Holy Spirit wills this to happen, It will happen.

Do you realize what a victory that would be in the war of good and evil. Thats History unfolding in front of us. That will be talked about thousands of years from now. And this will reverberate through Christology worldwide. The world will immediatly be that much better of a place. And we’ll live to see “how much”. We very well may have the unique opportunity to be part of that.

Of course thats my opinion. And your welcome to throw it out the window, and say Gary doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Catholic apologetics is highly selective, subjective and context lite

So you say.

That is the name which stuck . It doesn’t change the fact that the Church after the 11th century is the same as the Church before the 11th century. To quote Shakespeare, “a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”

The name that stuck is “The Catholic Church,” used first by St. Irenaeous in the year
103. It’s been ‘The Catholic Church’ ever since.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The name that stuck is “The Catholic Church,” used first by St. Irenaeous in the year 103. It’s been ‘The Catholic Church’ ever since.

Well no, not exactly. Now it’s the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

To suggest we are somehow ‘missing a lung’ or ‘not in Communion with Peter’ is wholly inconsistent with our theology and ecclesiology. We’re not missing any body parts because it is an impossibility for Christ’s body to be divided. Nor are we short an Apostle.

then why waste your time with dialogue? if your church is in no need of reform or critical judgment (unlike yourself i hope), then your church has no need of the contributions western christianity brings to the table. this must explain why the orthodox seldom evangelize beyond their national boarders. your church is a light on a hill that all people recognize as the one true christian church. sorry to break it to you, it’s not.

what i can’t understand is while the orthodox faith is about 99% the same as the catholic faith in essence, the orthodox seem to be the least willing to heal the breaks in the church which Christ explicitly commands us to do. the fact that the orthodox have been under the rule of the mohammedans for centuries and recently atheism, one would think they would be eager to bring their gifts to a unified church in order to grow and bring all people to Christ.

maybe what you want to do is stay in your ethnically defined circles and just shake your head at all the heretic christians–protestants and catholics–two sides on the same coin. hopefully you’ll feel good about how you’re the only true christian church and how everyone else is so hopelessly lost.

 

[Vico]

This is a fabrication which developed after Rome retroactively reinstated the robber council of 869 and removed reference to the council of 879. There is no evidence that Pope John condemned Photius, rather they remained in full communion.

I have read that. It looks like the original idea of the first post in the series is only a distant memory:

“There are many more dogmas of faith defined than those since the first seven ecumenical councils, as there have been 21 by Catholic count. There has been a serious problem at least since Photius and the rejection of the fourth council of Constantinople of 869-70, recognized by the Catholic Church as the eighth ecumenical council.”

 

[prodromos]

then why waste your time with dialogue? if your church is in no need of reform or critical judgment (unlike yourself i hope), then your church has no need of the contributions western christianity brings to the table.

impantokratoros.gr/conference-mountathos.en.aspx
The Announcement of the Joint Conference of the Abbots of Mount Athos 9/22/1980

The extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community on Mount Athos, April 9-22, 1980, noting that the issue of the relations of our holy orthodox Church with the heterodox has assumed a serious and resolute character, especially as it relates to the dialogue with Roman Catholics, has resolved publicly to state the opinion of the Athonite fathers on this subject for general consideration:.

1. We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fullness of grace and truth and, in consequence thereof, unbroken apostolic succession
   
2. Dialogue with the heterodox is not reprehensible from the Orthodox point of view if its goal is to inform them of the Orthodox Faith and, thus, make it possible for them thereby to return to Orthodoxy when they receive divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened.

this must explain why the orthodox seldom evangelize beyond their national boarders. your church is a light on a hill that all people recognize as the one true christian church. sorry to break it to you, it’s not.

I can’t help your being ignorant of Orthodox missionary activity. My own parish pours a great deal of support into missions in Indonesia, Madagascar and the Philippines as well as a number of countries in Africa. I suppose the fact that we don’t trumpet to the world how good we are, might explain your ignorance.

what i can’t understand is while the orthodox faith is about 99% the same as the catholic faith in essence, the orthodox seem to be the least willing to heal the breaks in the church which Christ explicitly commands us to do. the fact that the orthodox have been under the rule of the mohammedans for centuries and recently atheism, one would think they would be eager to bring their gifts to a unified church in order to grow and bring all people to Christ.

What size percentage difference of the faith of the Arians or the Nestorians caused them to be anathemised? Only by conforming 100% with the Orthodox faith could those who were formerly under anathema return to the Church. The grace of the Orthodox Church is here for all to receive. You only need enter the Church.

maybe what you want to do is stay in your ethnically defined circles and just shake your head at all the heretic christians–protestants and catholics–two sides on the same coin. hopefully you’ll feel good about how you’re the only true christian church and how everyone else is so hopelessly lost.

There are certainly some who take such an attitude, your Church has its fair share of them too. I am not one of them and I know many others like me. At some point, however, we need to recognise that not all are Apostles, not all are teachers etc. and we need first to concern ourselves with our own salvation. As St Theophan the Recluse said: “You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.”

 

[sidbrown]

then why waste your time with dialogue?

As I understand it, the reason for dialog from the Orthodox point of view is to convert Catholics to the Orthodox Church:
The Announcement of the Joint Conference of the Abbots of Mount Athos 9/22/1980
2. Dialogue with the heterodox is not reprehensible from the Orthodox point of view if its goal is to inform them of the Orthodox Faith and, thus, make it possible for them thereby to return to Orthodoxy when they receive divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have read that. It looks like the original idea of the first post in the series is only a distant memory:

“There are many more dogmas of faith defined than those since the first seven ecumenical councils, as there have been 21 by Catholic count. There has been a serious problem at least since Photius and the rejection of the fourth council of Constantinople of 869-70, recognized by the Catholic Church as the eighth ecumenical council.”

Agree’d. I’m wondering how much today has already been viewed as resolvable by the elect of both churchs?