G
gregorynyssa
Guest
The first article you posted did seem a bit harsh. We Orthodox have our anti-ecumenical zealots and they really like the internet, so you can run into them at a rate much higher than their relative numbers. I don’t know anything about those writing this report, but it looks a little strange to me. Some of the most vocal groups out there are very small and have broken communion with the Orthodox Church. So, you have to be careful and consider the source.
If you want to see something mainstream, look here:
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
That’s from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Anything there is going to be pretty representative of mainstream Orthodoxy as well as anything at OCA.org.
Some highlights from that article and it’s footnotes:
"In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).
Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: “If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition.” From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling."
“Ratzinger, before his elevation to the present position, stated: “Rome must not require more of a primacy doctrine from the East than was formulated and experienced in the first millenium. In Phanar, on 25 July 1976, when Patriarch Athenegoras addressed the visiting pope as Peter’s successor, the first in honour among us, and the presider over charity, this great church leader was expressing the essential content of the declarations of the primacy of the first millennium. And Rome cannot ask for more. Unification could occur if the East abandons its attack on the Western development of the second millenium as being heretical, and accepts the Catholic church as legitimate and orthodox in the form which it experienced in its own development. Conversely, unification could occur if the West recognized the Eastern Church as orthodox and legitimate in the form in which it has maintained itself”; see J. Ratzinger, “Die okumenishe Situation ‑ Orthodoxic, Katholizismus und Reformation”, in Theologische Prinzipienlehre: Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie, Munich, E. Wewel, 1982, p.209. This makes the pope a patriarch of the West and instantly limits his claim of universal jurisdictional primacy over the universal Church. Orthodox theologians must reflect whether this view can be accepted within the boundaries of legitimate diversity and uniqueness characteristic of the Western Church.”
I noticed that Cardinal Ratzinger said of the East that it had “maintained itself” and of the West he used the word “development.” There was a complaint in a post above that we “don’t want to define even one new single dogma.” We are glad to be accused of such a thing; this is what we want. From our perspective, it seems that the united Church of the first millennium was truly ecumenical and, as such, should inspire great confidence. We tend to think that 1000 years was long enough to adequately explain the dogmas of the church. Defining new ones is not our business. We try to wait for the rest of Christendom in the same place we all were when there was only one Church.
If you want to see something mainstream, look here:
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
That’s from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Anything there is going to be pretty representative of mainstream Orthodoxy as well as anything at OCA.org.
Some highlights from that article and it’s footnotes:
"In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).
Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: “If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition.” From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling."
“Ratzinger, before his elevation to the present position, stated: “Rome must not require more of a primacy doctrine from the East than was formulated and experienced in the first millenium. In Phanar, on 25 July 1976, when Patriarch Athenegoras addressed the visiting pope as Peter’s successor, the first in honour among us, and the presider over charity, this great church leader was expressing the essential content of the declarations of the primacy of the first millennium. And Rome cannot ask for more. Unification could occur if the East abandons its attack on the Western development of the second millenium as being heretical, and accepts the Catholic church as legitimate and orthodox in the form which it experienced in its own development. Conversely, unification could occur if the West recognized the Eastern Church as orthodox and legitimate in the form in which it has maintained itself”; see J. Ratzinger, “Die okumenishe Situation ‑ Orthodoxic, Katholizismus und Reformation”, in Theologische Prinzipienlehre: Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie, Munich, E. Wewel, 1982, p.209. This makes the pope a patriarch of the West and instantly limits his claim of universal jurisdictional primacy over the universal Church. Orthodox theologians must reflect whether this view can be accepted within the boundaries of legitimate diversity and uniqueness characteristic of the Western Church.”
I noticed that Cardinal Ratzinger said of the East that it had “maintained itself” and of the West he used the word “development.” There was a complaint in a post above that we “don’t want to define even one new single dogma.” We are glad to be accused of such a thing; this is what we want. From our perspective, it seems that the united Church of the first millennium was truly ecumenical and, as such, should inspire great confidence. We tend to think that 1000 years was long enough to adequately explain the dogmas of the church. Defining new ones is not our business. We try to wait for the rest of Christendom in the same place we all were when there was only one Church.
