Define "Supremacy"

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

If you want to trash Bp Ware, that’s your deal. But if you can dismiss someone of the likes of Bp Ware so easily, then don’t quote any Orthodox source ever again to support anything you say… After all, no ONE speaks for the Orthodox…

The Orthodox live in the Holy Apostolic Tradition by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Nobody needs to speak for the Orthodox while that Traditiion is left in peace from one generation to the next. So in the normal course of events the Orthodox do not actually need any visible head to speak for the Church. The Tradition is sufficient.

However, in times when heresies arise, then the Church calls together Councils of her bishops and they become the expression of the voice of the Church.

Also, in times of need the Holy Spirit has raised up individual voices to defend the Tradition…

Some examples are:

o St. Anthony the Great, founder of monasticism;

o St. Basil the Great, defender of the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Trinity;

o St. Athanasius the Great, defender of the teaching about Christ;

o St. Ambrose of Milan, defender of the Church against a wicked emperor;

o St. John Chrysostom, pastor, preacher and confessor of the Faith;

o St. John Cassian, father of Western monasticism and theologian;

o St. Leo the Great, defender of the Orthodox teaching on Christ’s two natures;

o St. Gregory the Great, pastor, missionary and theologian;

o St. Martin the Confessor, defender of the Person of Christ with St. Maximus the Confessor;

o St. Theodore the Studite, defender of the teaching on the Incarnation and, so, of icons;

o St. Photius the Great, defender of the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity;

o St. Simeon the New Theologian, defender of the spirituality of the Church;

o St. Gregory Palamas, defender of Orthodox spirituality against humanist and atheist rationalism;

o St. Mark of Ephesus, defender of the Church from scholastic rationalism;

o St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), defender of monasticism and prayer from impious rulers and the decadence of the Enlightenment;

o St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, canonist, pastor and theologian;

o Blessed John of Shanghai and San Francisco, preacher of repentance and return to Orthodoxy on five continents (canonized in 1994);

o Blessed Justin Popovich, confessor and defender of the theology of the Church (reposed 1979; his canonization is being prepared).

From the article:

**The Unity of the Orthodox Church **
by Priest Andrew Phillips
roca.org/oa/126-127/126d.htm

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Father Ambrose,

Check your messages - I sent you a pm yesterday or the day before - am not sure that the pm notifications are working, mine are intermittent at best.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Orthodoc]

It seems that Bishop Kallistos gets more ecumenical in each edition of ‘The Orthodox Church’ especially in his current edition. In many of his comments regarding the ‘filioque’ and the ‘Immaculate Conception’ Bishop Kallistos stands relatively alone from the rest of Holy Orthodoxy. There are very few who support him.

This is one of the reasons that, because the Orthodox faith is not centered around one man who is seen as infallible. Unlike the RCC it will not go into heresy when one Bishop tries leads it into error. The rest of the church will just either wall him off or speak out against him. And the truth of the undivided church will continue and the gates of hell will not prevail.

The following Orthodox website deals with the innovations regarding Bishop Kallistos Ware and the innovations he has made. It is the united voice of the majority Orthodox -

orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx

Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

The text to which you have referred us says that the whole written report of the 7th Ecumenical Council which was received in the West was a mess because of mistranslation…

Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. **The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. ****Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). **The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. **Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. **

So you can see that there was a lack of reliability what was conveyed to the West from this Council, and the misunderstanding was so great that it caused Charlemagne to reject the Council (at the Synod of Frankfurt) and he tried to persuade the Pope to reject the 7th Council also.

The Council of Florence defines…

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Has there been any subsequent Roman Catholic Council which modifies this definition? Is there any church authority which allows you to put forward as Catholic truth your theory of “proceeding” and “originating”? Could you please provide us with the reference? Otherwise I suspect that this is not really Roman Catholic doctrine but merely a private opinion and somewhat in the order of Bp Kallistos’.

Do your posts always have to drip with contempt?

The*** Father eternally gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him, everything the Father has, except to be the Father.*** Because of the Father then, the HS proceeds from both, Father and Son eternally. The Son didn’t eternally give to the Father, all that the Father has.

Your uncharitable contempt towards Catholics, in assuming the worst first, is unbecomming a priest in particular and a Christian in general. Try putting the sword away.
Fr Ambrose:

I am not trashing the bishop. But*** his position is at odds with the Orthodox consensus***, and while he may hold it as his private opinion (what we would call a theologoumenon), it obviously cannot supplant the mind of the Church.

The consensus is changing
Fr Ambrose:

**A statement from the Fathers of the Holy Mountain **
(at end of web page)
orthodoxinternetservices.com/reading/loveintruth.html

How do I know this speaks for Orthodoxy? Afterall, no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. Bp Ware speaks for many Orthodox. Is Bp Ware not holy?

 

[steve_b]

Orthodoc:

It seems that Bishop Kallistos gets more ecumenical in each edition of ‘The Orthodox Church’ especially in his current edition. In many of his comments regarding the ‘filioque’ and the ‘Immaculate Conception’ Bishop Kallistos stands relatively alone from the rest of Holy Orthodoxy. There are very few who support him.

This is one of the reasons that, because the Orthodox faith is not centered around one man who is seen as infallible. Unlike the RCC it will not go into heresy when one Bishop tries leads it into error. The rest of the church will just either wall him off or speak out against him. And the truth of the undivided church will continue and the gates of hell will not prevail.

The following Orthodox website deals with the innovations regarding Bishop Kallistos Ware and the innovations he has made. It is the united voice of the majority Orthodox -

orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx

Orthodoc

Bp Ware is popular accross many boundries.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Do your posts always have to drip with contempt?

They don’t. It may be only your perception. I find that your posts often seem to do that, and with one or two other posters there is no doubt that they do. I find myself in a very hositile environment here when they are posting and they they pull no punches. We are accused of being schismatic (and they are using the word emotively more than technically), of having no unity, of being dead since the 8th century, of being divided by heresies (still waiting for Joannes to explain that one)… etc, etc.

The*** Father eternally gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him, everything the Father has, except to be the Father.*** Because of the Father then, the HS proceeds from both, Father and Son eternally. The Son didn’t eternally give to the Father, all that the Father has.

I honestly see no definition in that statement which teaches the contemporary distinction between “proceeding” and “originating.” It seems that it is a modern opinion iand not part of Catholic doctrine.

Your uncharitable contempt towards Catholics, in assuming the worst first, is unbecomming a priest in particular and a Christian in general. Try putting the sword away.

I have no contempt for Catholics. “Assuming the worst…”? Unfortunately, once you move out of the much more tolerant American environment, you find that assuming the worst is justified by all historical contact between the two religions.

But you speak of contempt? Look at the recent statement by the Venerable Archimandrite Robert Taft from the Pontifical College for Oriental Studies. Now there’s contempt. Look at Cardinal Kasper broadcasting to the world that “the Orthodox Church does not really exist.” He bases his contemptuous statement on his preconceptions that the Orthodox should have something equivalent to the papal system and it simply doesn’t. We hear lots of contempt against Orthodoxy and coming from the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church. Because you are on the other side of the fence it may not be so apparent.

The consensus is changing

Orthodox lives by her Tradition. The truth is not to be bought and sold in the market place of ecumenism where clever theologians bargain away bits of it and hope to cobble together a pseudo-unity. No, my friend, the Church will never be moved from her Tradition, not by one iota.

How do I know this speaks for Orthodoxy? Afterall, no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. Bp Ware speaks for many Orthodox. Is Bp Ware not holy?

In breve, one needs to measure it against the Tradition. By continuing to repeat that no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy you continue to make it impossible to understand the inner life of Orthodox in the Spirit which is self-authenticating. We do not need any ONE to speak for us, especially on this point. Ingenious semantic constucts by 21st century theologians and sherry-swilling ecumenical committees do not speak for the Tradition of our Fathers.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I honestly see no definition in that statement which teaches the contemporary distinction between “proceeding” and “originating.” It seems that it is a modern opinion iand not part of Catholic doctrine.

If I have mistated or left unclear anything in what I have posted, I’ll chalk it up to my miscommunication not the Church’s. And I happily defer all correction and proper communication of the issue to the Church.
Fr Ambrose:

I have no contempt for Catholics. "Assuming the worst…"? Unfortunately, once you move out of the much more tolerant American environment, you find that assuming the worst is justified by all historical contact between the two religions.

This explains alot in the way you approach this forum. Think about it. If you’re ever going to make a difference, you’ll have to get over assuming first, the worst about others.
Fr Ambrose:

But you speak of contempt? Look at the recent statement by the Venerable Archimandrite Robert Taft from the Pontifical College for Oriental Studies. Now there’s contempt.

what did he say?
Fr Ambrose:

Look at Cardinal Kasper broadcasting to the world that “the Orthodox Church does not really exist.” He bases his contemptuous statement on his preconceptions that the Orthodox should have something equivalent to the papal system and it simply doesn’t. We hear lots of contempt against Orthodoxy and coming from the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church. Because you are on the other side of the fence it may not be so apparent.

1. I didn’t hear the comments.
2. The context would be helpful.
3. At the highest levels of the Church, the attempt is to reconcile.

Fr Ambrose:

Orthodox lives by her Tradition. The truth is not to be bought and sold in the market place of ecumenism where clever theologians bargain away bits of it and hope to cobble together a pseudo-unity. No, my friend, the Church will never be moved from her Tradition, not by one iota.

We have to make a distinction between (t)radition and (T)radition. The schism is (t)radition. It’s not holy, and it isn’t from the HS.
Fr Ambrose:

In breve, one needs to measure it against the Tradition. By continuing to repeat that no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy you continue to make it impossible to understand the inner life of Orthodox in the Spirit which is self-authenticating.

How can the ONE self-authenticating Spirit, be so divided? Answer He’s not.

As Paul says, those who divide aren’t serving Our Lord Jesus Christ but there own appetites. So the “self-authenticating spirit” can be seen in unity, not in division.

I would suggest that it’s (t)radition NOT (T)radition, that keeps the pot boiling or simmering as the case may be.
Fr Ambrose:

We do not need any ONE to speak for us,

Can you support that with scripture?
Fr Ambrose:

Ingenious semantic constucts by 21st century theologians and sherry-swilling ecumenical committees do not speak for the Tradition of our Fathers.

Who specifically are the sherry swilling theologians you’re talking about?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

what did he say?

It’s more a question of what didn’t he say!

The Venerable Archimandrite Robert Taft gave his interview to the National Catholic Reporter on 4th February last year. I cannot pull it up from their archives any more and had to locate it via google.com
google.co.nz/search?q=cache:LNsT0DpuFAoJ:www.krotov.org/engl/library/taft2003.html+%22should+be+appointing+the+bishop+of+Peoria%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&strip=1

or

tinyurl.com/3lh88

**Interview with Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute **
February 4, 2004 By John L. Allen, Jr. Rome

1. I didn’t hear the comments.
2. The context would be helpful.
3. At the highest levels of the Church, the attempt is to reconcile.

Please see here -an Orthodox response to the Cardinal’s momentary lapse of diplomacy…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=377794&postcount=165

How can the ONE self-authenticating Spirit, be so divided? Answer He’s not.

Of course He is not. Please see the link I gave above for the Cardinal. It leads to an article on Orthodox unity.
You may also like to read…
**The Unity of the Orthodox Church **
by Priest Andrew Phillips roca.org/oa/126-127/126d.htm

In general it seems that Roman Catholics have no real grasp of the nature of the unity of the Orthodox Church. They seem flummoxed when they realise that it does not conform to their own heavily hierarchical model of church government. This was the crux of Cardinal Kasper’s problem. He seemed to believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople was some kind of Eastern Pope and that he could simply negotiate with him and not with the rest of the Orthodox Churches. BIg mistake. Orthodoxy is genuinely collegial and conciliar and has nothing remotely like the papal system of government.

Fr Ambrose: We do not need any ONE to speak for us,

Steve b: Can you support that with scripture?

I cannot be asked to prove a negative, my dear friend. It is you who need to prove that Scripture teaches that one man speaks for the Church of God

Who specifically are the sherry swilling theologians you’re talking about?

Ah, you need to get yourself onto some ecumenical commissions. After going out on the town and spending more money on a swanky restaraunt meal and wine and whisky than your average family makes in a week, they come back to their five-star hotel and spend until 4am at the bar discussing theological issues.

The Orthodox sometimes refer to these “theologians” affectionately as armchair theologians. People with no ascetic life but comfortably sitting in their armchairs wreathed in cigarette smoke and with a decanter of sherry close by. Real theology is learnt from the lips of the Almighty, revealed to those who live deep lives of prayer and fasting, to those who deny themselves for the sake of the Kingdom. Fortunately, the faithful know this and they look to the monks and the monasteries such as the Holy Mountain to hear their appraisal of the endless Agreed Statements and Ecumenical Seminars of our armchair theologians

._______________
“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

It’s more a question of what didn’t he say!

The Venerable Archimandrite Robert Taft gave his interview to the National Catholic Reporter on 4th February last year. I cannot pull it up from their archives any more and had to locate it via google.com
google.co.nz/search?q=cache:LNsT0DpuFAoJ:www.krotov.org/engl/library/taft2003.html+%22should+be+appointing+the+bishop+of+Peoria%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&strip=1

or

tinyurl.com/3lh88

**Interview with Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute **
February 4, 2004 By John L. Allen, Jr. Rome

tinyurl.com/3lh88

I enjoyed the read. But how is it that you found this article?

Fr Ambrose:

Please see here -an Orthodox response to the Cardinal’s momentary lapse of diplomacy…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=377794&postcount=165

Do you have the link to Cardinal Kasper’s remarks?
Fr Ambrose:

Of course He is not. Please see the link I gave above for the Cardinal. It leads to an article on Orthodox unity.
You may also like to read…
**The Unity of the Orthodox Church **
by Priest Andrew Phillips roca.org/oa/126-127/126d.htm

In general it seems that Roman Catholics have no real grasp of the nature of the unity of the Orthodox Church. They seem flummoxed when they realise that it does not conform to their own heavily hierarchical model of church government. This was the crux of Cardinal Kasper’s problem. He seemed to believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople was some kind of Eastern Pope and that he could simply negotiate with him and not with the rest of the Orthodox Churches. BIg mistake. Orthodoxy is genuinely collegial and conciliar and has nothing remotely like the papal system of government.

In otherwords,

1. The Orthodox Churches aren’t hierarchical
2. Orthodoxy is collegial and conciliar.

So why is there so much anamous among the Orthodox towards Catholicism? Are individual Orthodox not able to make choices for themselves? Who is telling Orthodox bishops, and faithful they can’t talk with Rome?

Given that there are Eastern Patriarchs in the west, why can’t there be Western Patriarchs established in the East. Seems like a double standard.
Fr Ambrose:

I cannot be asked to prove a negative, my dear friend. It is you who need to prove that Scripture teaches that one man speaks for the Church of God

In each case, Jesus is speaking to Peter alone in front of the other apostles.

“You are (Rock)Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church. I give you soi = you in the Greek, 1st person singular] the keys to the kingdom of God, Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”

“those who hear you [Peter] hear me, and those who don’t hear you don’t hear me or the one who sent me”

" Satan has asked to sift you [plural meaning all the apostles]. But I have prayed for you [Peter, (singular)], to strengthen your brothers."

“feed and rule my sheep”
Fr Ambrose:

. Real theology is learnt from the lips of the Almighty, revealed to those who live deep lives of prayer and fasting, to those who deny themselves for the sake of the Kingdom. Fortunately, the faithful know this

I personally know theologians who fit this description.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

I enjoyed the read. But how is it that you found this article?

I could not find it in the archives of the National Catholic Reporter where it used to be.

I had a copy in my computer’s files. I took one phrase from it - “should be appointing the bishop of peoria” and used it in a Search Engine. I use [google. com](http://www.google. com) Google.com turned up three references to the article.

Do you have the link to Cardinal Kasper’s remarks?

No, but if memory serves they were in a Zenit.org report. Try seaching their archives zenit.org/english/

Who is telling Orthodox bishops, and faithful they can’t talk with Rome?

An example: Last month the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church brought down a decision against its primate Archbishop Christodoulos visiting the Pope in Rome. But on the whole, the Orthodox do talk with Rome.

Given that there are Eastern Patriarchs in the west, why can’t there be Western Patriarchs established in the East. Seems like a double standard.

I don’t know of any Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs in the West, but I do know of Roman Catholic Patriarchs in the East, e.g., the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Michel Sabbah
Website for the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem
lpj.org/

Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.” -Jeremiah 6:16

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

I enjoyed the read. But how is it that you found this article?

I could not find it in the archives of the National Catholic Reporter where it used to be.

I had a copy in my computer’s files. I took one phrase from it - “should be appointing the bishop of peoria” and used it in a Search Engine. I use [google. com](http://www.google. com) Google.com turned up three references to the article.

Do you have the link to Cardinal Kasper’s remarks?

No, but if memory serves they were in a Zenit.org report. Try seaching their archives zenit.org/english/

Who is telling Orthodox bishops, and faithful they can’t talk with Rome?

An example: Last month the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church brought down a decision against its primate Archbishop Christodoulos visiting the Pope in Rome. But on the whole, the Orthodox do talk with Rome.

Given that there are Eastern Patriarchs in the west, why can’t there be Western Patriarchs established in the East. Seems like a double standard.

I don’t know of any Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs in the West, but I do know of Roman Catholic Patriarchs in the East, e.g., the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Michel Sabbah
Website for the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem
lpj.org/

Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.” -Jeremiah 6:16

 

[Matthew_P]

Here is one of those theologians that meet the aforementioned description. I suppose ya’ll know that the Latins used to share the following understandings.

The explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact says the following.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, “the” , but with the article, “the Son”, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him “Bar Jona”, that is, son of Jona", as if saying, “Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him.” He calls this knowledge “revelation”, speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord says, “This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation.” For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying “My Church” He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said “O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death” (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, “I will give unto thee.” For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By “keys” understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind, Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for “ye remit”, aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, “whose soever sins thou remittest”, but since “ye” is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words “I will give” indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples. “The heavens” also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in aquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

1. I didn’t hear the comments [of Cardinal Kasper]
2. The context would be helpful.
3. At the highest levels of the Church, the attempt is to reconcile.

Somebody very kindly sent me the Zenit.org article

Date: 2002-03-07

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=17658

The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper

A Delicate Project “Totally Different from Relativism”

ROME, MARCH 7, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The ecumenical movement risks losing young people unless it can produce a vision for the future, says the cardinal who oversees the cause.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, recently delivered an address evaluating ecumenism. The address appears in the latest edition of the Italian biweekly Il Regno.

“To a certain degree, the crisis of the ecumenical movement is the consequence of its success,” the German cardinal writes.

“The more we come closer to one another, the more painful is the experience of not yet being in full communion among ourselves, which creates a certain dissatisfaction and frustration,” he states.

Moreover, “the new generation of faithful and priests has not lived through the council and does not understand how things have changed,” Cardinal Kasper observes.

In this context, he mentions three key challenges:

–“In the first place, we must promote ecumenical formation and the reception of ecumenical results. The results of ecumenical progress have yet to penetrate the heart and flesh of our Church and of the other Churches.”

–“In the second place, we must clarify and renew the ecumenical vision. We need a new ecumenical language and impulse. We run the risk of losing a whole generation of youths if we are not capable of giving them a vision.”

–Third, Cardinal Kasper appealed for the harmonizing of dialogue and identity. In this context, he emphasizes, “One can see what the problem and advantages of ´Dominus Iesus´ are, which highlighted the question of identity.”

“Dominus Iesus” was the August 2000 declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the uniqueness and salvific universality of Jesus and the Church. Though criticized for sounding less than ecumenical, it basically reiterated magisterial teaching on the nature of the Catholic Church.

“We must underline clearly that serious ecumenism is something totally different from confessional indifference and relativism; it tends to gravitate around the highest common denominator,” Cardinal Kasper states.

The cardinal then reviews the situation of relations between Catholics and other Christian confessions.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Cardinal Kasper points out the tensions within the Lutheran world on the question of ministries as well as tensions in the realm of the Anglican Communion.

Given the above, he believes that over the next few years, ecumenism must progress “at two, or even more, speeds.”

However, he cautions, “we must avoid giving the impression of ´divide et impera.´ We would engage in bad ecumenism if we created new divisions in the other Churches or confessional families, or if we tended to a new form of ´Uniatism.´” The latter – considered a pejorative term in the East – signifies the Eastern Christians who left the Orthodox Church to join Rome.

“A two-speed ecumenism is something very delicate. However, in the present situation there is no realistic alternative,” Cardinal Kasper concludes.

---

“Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of *myrrh * and to the hill of incense.” ~Song of Solomon 4:6

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Somebody very kindly sent me the Zenit.org article

Date: 2002-03-07

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=17658

The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper

A Delicate Project “Totally Different from Relativism”

ROME, MARCH 7, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The ecumenical movement risks losing young people unless it can produce a vision for the future, says the cardinal who oversees the cause.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, recently delivered an address evaluating ecumenism. The address appears in the latest edition of the Italian biweekly Il Regno.

“To a certain degree, the crisis of the ecumenical movement is the consequence of its success,” the German cardinal writes.

“The more we come closer to one another, the more painful is the experience of not yet being in full communion among ourselves, which creates a certain dissatisfaction and frustration,” he states.

Moreover, “the new generation of faithful and priests has not lived through the council and does not understand how things have changed,” Cardinal Kasper observes.

In this context, he mentions three key challenges:

–“In the first place, we must promote ecumenical formation and the reception of ecumenical results. The results of ecumenical progress have yet to penetrate the heart and flesh of our Church and of the other Churches.”

–“In the second place, we must clarify and renew the ecumenical vision. We need a new ecumenical language and impulse. We run the risk of losing a whole generation of youths if we are not capable of giving them a vision.”

–Third, Cardinal Kasper appealed for the harmonizing of dialogue and identity. In this context, he emphasizes, “One can see what the problem and advantages of ´Dominus Iesus´ are, which highlighted the question of identity.”

“Dominus Iesus” was the August 2000 declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the uniqueness and salvific universality of Jesus and the Church. Though criticized for sounding less than ecumenical, it basically reiterated magisterial teaching on the nature of the Catholic Church.

“We must underline clearly that serious ecumenism is something totally different from confessional indifference and relativism; it tends to gravitate around the highest common denominator,” Cardinal Kasper states.

The cardinal then reviews the situation of relations between Catholics and other Christian confessions.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Cardinal Kasper points out the tensions within the Lutheran world on the question of ministries as well as tensions in the realm of the Anglican Communion.

Given the above, he believes that over the next few years, ecumenism must progress “at two, or even more, speeds.”

However, he cautions, “we must avoid giving the impression of ´divide et impera.´ We would engage in bad ecumenism if we created new divisions in the other Churches or confessional families, or if we tended to a new form of ´Uniatism.´” The latter – considered a pejorative term in the East – signifies the Eastern Christians who left the Orthodox Church to join Rome.

“A two-speed ecumenism is something very delicate. However, in the present situation there is no realistic alternative,” Cardinal Kasper concludes.

---

“Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of *myrrh *and to the hill of incense.” ~Song of Solomon 4:6

Ahhhhh the marvels of the internet and somebody’s hard drive! Thanks for finding the context. I broke the cardinal’s comment into 3 parts. Point 1 can’t be isolated from context, correct?

1. "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,
2. it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches;
3. " there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."

Do you want to talk about these 3 points?