Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[jimmy]

It would be interesting to know what the the so called “revisionist” account is in favour of the existence of the Miaphysites is. The we might be better able to judge what Marc is proposing.

God bless,
Ut

If you want to know what the actual Christology of the Orientals is, read the writings of Severus of Antioch, and compare them to Cyril of Alexandria. You can get many of their writings in English. Considering that Severus died in the 530’s, he is a good source. I would also recommend reading cardinal Grillmeier’s series on Christology. He covers all the players in the Christology debate. It is extremely detailed though and can be a difficult read.

 

[Reuben_J]

I was personally not taught that any method of birth control, including the pill, were immoral.

Unfortunately most artificial birth control pills in the market today are abortive as also the IUDs while condoms and douchings prevent conception to take place. They are therefore deemed as stopping/interfering in the natural process of life formation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fr. John,

Thank you again for your responses! I’ll just address one point since I responded to others raised by another poster previously. I am aware that there is an official commission for ecumenical dialogue. My point is that the churches are not bound to any agreement that they reach. Suppose for example that the commission comes to an agreement concerning the papacy that recognizes some Catholic claims. Because the dialogue was not conducted individually by each church, I strongly suspect that many members of that church would reject the agreement. I think a single church in dialogue would prevent this problem, but I admit that this is just speculation.

Gee, I wish I’d said that…oh, wait…

 

[Randy_Carson]

We do have unity within the Orthodox Church on what really matters, because what matters is doctrine, not administrative unity.

Fr. John

“Unity on the essentials.” I hear this from Protestants all the time.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“Unity on the essentials.” I hear this from Protestants all the time.

A somewhat risible criticism, coming from somebody who is a member of the Church which produced such unlike figures as Hans Urs von Balthasar or Karl Rahner, and Garrigou-Lagrange (not to mention the late Archbishop Joseph Raya who was about as different from any of the other mentioned theologians as oil is from water; though they all have their merits, I must admit). I would say, frankly, that Orthodoxy has more than just unity on the essentials.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for the kind words! If our Churches are going to achieve unity again, it must begin with honest dialogue. I really appreciate Fr. John’s presence here and the time he takes to explain our understanding for this reason.

I’m focusing on Orthodox problems (granted perhaps only problems for me!) because it is our responsibility to judge ourselves, not our brothers. In that light, have you heard of the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople? My Catholic friends that I’ve been meeting with never had. Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

We often hear of the crimes that Catholics committed such as the 4th crusade, inquisition, etc., but we Orthodox have events to repent of as well!

Wow. Thank you for sharing that.

Strong statements against the West regarding the sacking of Constantinople have been made by some, so it is interesting to learn that just 20 years earlier, the noble citizens of Constantinople killed or exiled 60,000 Latins.

No two ways about it…one by one, the arguments against Rome keep falling.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was personally not taught that any method of birth control, including the pill, were immoral.

Yes, this began in the West with the Anglican Lambeth conference in 1931, and this article describes the situation:

Little Lost Lambeth
By Steven Kellmeyer
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/story2.html

Within a few years, almost all Protestant denominations had accepted ABC.

Here’s the question: prior to this time, Protestants had universally taught that contraception was a sin. So, were they teaching error prior to 1931?, or are they teaching error now?

I’m not sure about the Orthodox position, and I’m not sure that all Orthodox agree with one another, but the Catholic Church has remained unwavering in its opposition against ABC.

 

[Peter_J]

“Unity on the essentials.” I hear this from Protestants all the time.

Before any protestants get a big head, I feel I should point out that they almost certainly stole it from us Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

This is the first time in a forum that anyone such as you have tried to bring some understanding and honesty concerning some of the problems in the Orthodox Churches.

Interesting. First time, eh?

Now I’m wondering what we did in past years, when you weren’t here to tell us the history of the forum.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A somewhat risible criticism, coming from somebody who is a member of the Church which produced such unlike figures as Hans Urs von Balthasar or Karl Rahner, and Garrigou-Lagrange (not to mention the late Archbishop Joseph Raya who was about as different from any of the other mentioned theologians as oil is from water; though they all have their merits, I must admit). I would say, frankly, that Orthodoxy has more than just unity on the essentials.

I do appreciate all the attention you pay to me, Cav. Truly.

However, your tu quoque argument falls flat, and in response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are or are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools of thought adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics).Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Orthodoxy that can speak for Orthodoxy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Before any protestants get a big head, I feel I should point out that they almost certainly stole it from us Catholics.

“Melkite (in communion with Rome)”

What does that mean, exactly?

 

[jimmy]

I do appreciate all the attention you pay to me, Cav. Truly.

However, your tu quoque argument falls flat, and in response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are or are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools of thought adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics).Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Orthodoxy that can speak for Orthodoxy.

Then again, maybe it is simply that the Orthodox have an official position on the essential things, and then leave everything else open. So as Augustine said, unity in essentials, freedom in the non essentials, in all things charity.

 

[jimmy]

“Melkite (in communion with Rome)”

What does that mean, exactly?

It means he is Melkite, which means he is in communion with Rome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“Melkite (in communion with Rome)”

What does that mean, exactly?

They are probably our best chance at unity between Catholic and Orthodox.

6 Things you should know about the Melkite Catholic Church

The Melkite Church, a sui iuris patriarchal Church, is not merely a subset of the Roman Church. Indeed, it is a Church with its own history, theology, spirituality, and liturgy. The Melkite Church, being of Eastern origin, thus zealously guards her Byzantine approach to the Faith, seeing herself as a sister of the Roman Church. In times past, this defense of her heritage put some strain on the Church’s relationship with Rome. For example, at the First Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef refused to sign the decree of Pastor Aeternus concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. When questioned by Rome on the matter, the Patriarch determined that he would only sign the decree with this caveat added: “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs,” as he knew he must protect the prerogatives of the Eastern hierarchy. Though this action won him the enmity of Pope Pius IX, the Patriarch was vindicated by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Orientalium Dignitas, as well as in his expansion of the Melkite patriarchate’s jurisdiction in the Middle East. In the century that followed, relations with Rome improved considerably. Those Melkite parishes that previously had been forcefully Latinized saw the beginning of a return to their authentic traditions, and the Church expanded into North and South America. At the Second Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV spoke on behalf of the “absent members” of the Council: the Orthodox Churches. He did this with the complete approbation of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. Maximos argued against the Latinization of the Eastern Churches, and in favour of the use of vernacular languages in all the liturgies of the Catholic Church. For his outstanding work at the Council, he was awarded with the Cardinalate. Following the Council, the Roman Church returned to the more ancient ecclesiological perspective of viewing its relationship with the Eastern Churches as one of sisters, rather than of mother and daughters.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
Before any protestants get a big head, I feel I should point out that they almost certainly stole it from us Catholics.

Huh? I didn’t say “Melkite (in communion with Rome)” … OIC, you’re asking about my profile. “Melkite (in communion with Rome)” is redundant but I figure some people have never heard of the Melkite Church (full name: Melkite Greek Catholic Church) so I included that “(in communion with Rome)” clarifier.

 

[Peter_J]

They are probably our best chance at unity between Catholic and Orthodox.

At the risk of being a flip-flopper, with respect to my think of just a couple years ago, I’ve come to suspect that some of my fellow Melkites greatly exaggerate the significance of the Melkite Initiative. (Of course, that’s not meant as response to everything you posted.)

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’d like to comment on a few of the specific points I raised.

• the ability to establish a uniform translation of service texts would be a practical benefit to everyone. I see no reason why we need five or more English translations which exist only because they were undertaken by each jurisdiction individually. A translation body representing all canonical Orthodox Churches could easily meet and fill this need.
I RESPOND: The Assembly of Bishops is working on this problem. They have a committee on Liturgy that is working on common translations of the most commonly used in the Orthodox Church. If you are Western Rite Antiochian, they have only one translation of the two liturgies that they use.
• the multiplicity of jurisdictions, whether Catholics would consider it a problem or not, is for us. It is uncanonical, divisive, and an imieidment to potential converts. The reason it has not been solved to date is the unwillingness of each jurisdiction to give up control. There are many Orthodox working to resolve this, but mechanism to do so does not yet exist.
I RESPOND; The mechanism to resolve this problem does exist. One of the purposes of the Bishop’s Assembly is to solve this problem. All canonical Bishops are members and they have set up committees to deal with a wide range of issues. Go to their web site and see what they are doing to resolve this problem. assemblyofbishops.org/
I am a consultant to the Pastoral and Ecumenicl Committees of the Bishop’s Assembly and am very encouraged by what we are trying to do to bring Orthodox together. I attended a very encouraging meeting of the Pastoral Committee in May in California. Representatives of all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions were there and we are working to develop unified practices on a whole range of issues.
• the issue of communion is significant because we determine Orthodoxy through communion. There are churches that teach some very harmful things that call themselves Orthodox, and inquirers may not realize this when visiting. I personally had a conversation with a priest (I will not name the jurisdiction) who spent considerable time trying to convince me that bearded clergy were a part of Holy Tradition, and unbearded clergy heterodox schismatics.
I RESPOND: There is no way that the canonical Orthodox Church can keep people who are not really Orthodox from misrepresenting themselves as Orthodox. If a Bishop is not a member of the Bishop’s Assembly, he is not a canonical Eastern Orthodox Bishop. Perhaps the most serious problem that we have is Orthodox Fundamentalist like that Priest who teach nonsense like that. If a man calls himself an Orthodox Priest but makes a big issue of beards, wearing a cassock to the Mall, the Old Calendar and the “heresy” of ecumenism, he is probably not really canonical. If he is canonical, he is also theologically ignorant. Do not waste your time with people like that. They are far outside of the mainstream of sound Orthodox theology. There are Orthodox Bishops who are fully canonical, but do not wear beards. My Bishop, Bishop Antoun of Miami does not wear a beard.

• our teaching on contemporary issues of course still exists, but would be stronger if we could speak with one voice. When the media, for example, asks the Catholic Church for a reaction to a current event, it can simply ask the Pope. For the Orthodox, you are asking multiple churches that can only speak for themselves, and not Orthodoxy as a whole.
I RESPOND: We Orthodox do need better public relations, but the problem is that the press ignores us. Do you know that a few months ago the Syrian rebels tied to assassinate the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Did our press cover it? Did they even mention the death about a year ago of his predecessor, His Beatitude Ignatius IV? The press does not cover us because we are small in this country and are intensely political incorrect.
• it is certainly possible that there is room for theological opinion on many issues, as I said, but it is unclear to me on some of these if this is the case or not. Contraception is a serious moral question, and I know of a priest that unequivocally condemns it. In my own catechesis however the issue was never discussed. I would appreciate leadership that can address this if nothing else. This is likewise the case with Aerial Tollhouses.
I RESPOND: The issues that you bring up tell me that you being confused by people who are far outside outside of mainstream Orthodox theology. Every contemporary expert on moral issues such as Frs. Stanley Harakas, John Meyendorff, John Breck, and Tristan Engleardt, all agree that under the right circumstances non-abortive methods of birth control are not sinful. The Moscow Patriarchate produced very detailed statement on contemporary moral issues which you can read at stlukeorthodox.com/html/currentissues/articles/churchAndSociety/tocindex.cfm.
The Greek Archdiocese has a fairly detailed discussion on contemporary moral issues at goarch.org/ourfaith/controversialissues
The whole issue of Toll Houses is being raised by Orthodox Fundamentalists who are not teaching sound Orthodox theology. At best Toll Houses is a metaphor for the particular judgment. At worst, it is heresy. The Catholics in America have a problem with feminist nuns. The Eastern Orthodox have a problem with fundamentalist monastics.
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then again, maybe it is simply that the Orthodox have an official position on the essential things, and then leave everything else open. So as Augustine said, unity in essentials, freedom in the non essentials, in all things charity.

Yes, I’ve had that quoted to me before.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Huh? I didn’t say “Melkite (in communion with Rome)” … OIC, you’re asking about my profile. “Melkite (in communion with Rome)” is redundant but I figure some people have never heard of the Melkite Church (full name: Melkite Greek Catholic Church) so I included that “(in communion with Rome)” clarifier.

I guess what I’m asking is: Just how supportive of the papacy are the Melkites?

There seems to be a pretty broad spectrum of folks chiming in on these threads…

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do appreciate all the attention you pay to me, Cav. Truly.

However, your tu quoque argument falls flat, and in response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are or are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools of thought adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics).Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Orthodoxy that can speak for Orthodoxy.

There are also official Orthodox teachings on all important theological matters. If a priest teaches heresy, his Bishop takes care of the matter. The priest must get in line with the teaching of the Church or he is suspended. Yet, you cannot deny that there are serious problems with feminist nuns and other liberals in the Roman Catholic Church. Having had several unpleasant encounters with feminist nuns who favor woman’s ordination and other heresies, I know from personal experiences that the Catholic Church does need to do some house cleaning of its own before they criticize the Eastern Orthodox. If we have theological problems it is not with liberal theology, it is with ill educated Orthodox who consider 19th century practices dogma.

Fr. John