Ecumenical dialogue from an Eastern Orthodox point of view

[Ahlman]

In cardinal Kasper’s comment about the ecumencial dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, he gives his idea about how full communion is to be restored from a Roman Catholic point of view.

Excerpt:

"The second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order – ‘taxis’ in Greek – of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first among them. (…) “So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.”

The discussion, from his point of view, seems (basically) to be about finding a way in which the primace of the pope is to be exercised with the Eastern Orthodox Churches not yet in full communion with Rome.

However, is this how things are seen by the Eastern Orthodox? Doesn’t this imply that the Roman Catholic Church indeed is the Church in which the true Church of Christ “subsists” and that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one that is schismatic and has to return to full communion? Doesn’t the Eastern Orthodox Church consider itself to be the true Church of Christ and that the Roman Catholic Church is schismatic for reasons of claiming universal primacy over all the other churches and for adding the filioque to the creed? Wouldn’t it feel strange for the Eastern Orthodox if the “first among equals” after a future reconciliation would be the one that previously was schismatic?

I am not trying to ask a rhetorical question, I am just curious about in what way the Eastern Orthodox think that a possible future reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church would look like.

 

[josephdaniel29]

However, is this how things are seen by the Eastern Orthodox? Doesn’t this imply that the Roman Catholic Church indeed is the Church in which the true Church of Christ “subsists” and that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one that is schismatic and has to return to full communion?.

It implies nothing of the sort. The Orthodox Church has always been willing to adhere to the ancient practice and polity of the undivided Church. It shows that we are willing to faithfully discern what those practices were and to return to that status quo if Rome were to return to the Church.

I am not trying to ask a rhetorical question, I am just curious about in what way the Eastern Orthodox think that a possible future reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church would look like.

I’ll lay it out the way I see it. If the two Churches were to reunite the Bishop of Rome would reclaim the position of first among equals from the EP. The Pope would head any council and as the Apostolic Canons prescribe the council should do nothing without his consent but neither will the Pope do anything without the consent of the rest. The Pope would also have appellate jurisdiction if difficulties arise between the autochephalous Churches and he would be our spiritual father and would be a spokesperson for the Church.

Some of the things the Pope would not have. He would not have the right to declare newly defined doctrine or dogma without the consent of the entire Church, most likely assembled in a council. He would have absolutely no regular jurisdiction outside his own Patriarchate. He would have no say in the election of other Patriarchs.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Peter_J]

Wouldn’t it feel strange for the Eastern Orthodox if the “first among equals” after a future reconciliation would be the one that previously was schismatic?

I’m not Orthodox, but presumably it would feel strange.

 

[wynd]

I’m not Orthodox, but presumably it would feel strange.

I’ve heard some Orthodox people say that since Rome has been in heresy for so long, it would need to be in a period of “repentance” before it could assume its former place as first. I don’t necessarily hold this view, but it is food for thought.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It implies nothing of the sort. The Orthodox Church has always been willing to adhere to the ancient practice and polity of the undivided Church. It shows that we are willing to faithfully discern what those practices were and to return to that status quo if Rome were to return to the Church.

I’ll lay it out the way I see it. If the two Churches were to reunite the Bishop of Rome would reclaim the position of first among equals from the EP. The Pope would head any council and as the Apostolic Canons prescribe the council should do nothing without his consent but neither will the Pope do anything without the consent of the rest. The Pope would also have appellate jurisdiction if difficulties arise between the autochephalous Churches and he would be our spiritual father and would be a spokesperson for the Church.

Some of the things the Pope would not have. He would not have the right to declare newly defined doctrine or dogma without the consent of the entire Church, most likely assembled in a council. He would have absolutely no regular jurisdiction outside his own Patriarchate. He would have no say in the election of other Patriarchs.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Fine with me.
“the least will be the greatest and the leader the servant of all.” Jesus said it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I’ve heard some Orthodox people say that since Rome has been in heresy for so long, it would need to be in a period of “repentance” before it could assume its former place as first. I don’t necessarily hold this view, but it is food for thought.

I don’t agree with that view either. If Rome took the steps necessary to re-enter communion with us that would be more than enough repentance in my humble opinion.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Lilyflower]

I’ve heard some Orthodox people say that since Rome has been in heresy for so long, it would need to be in a period of “repentance” before it could assume its former place as first. I don’t necessarily hold this view, but it is food for thought.

I would suggest that BOTH NEED to have a period of repentence and prayer for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Whatever caused the split, in my humble view BOTH were culpable so BOTH should do penance if only to say sorry to Almighty God for allowing such an abomination to occur.

Blessings and peace.

 

[Peter_J]

It seems worthwhile to mention that, from the Catholic p.o.v., once reconciliation occurs the Patriarch of Constantinople would once again rank second (which we believe he hasn’t for almost a thousand years, as a result of being in schism).

 

[Harpazo]

I’ll lay it out the way I see it. If the two Churches were to reunite the Bishop of Rome would reclaim the position of first among equals from the EP. The Pope would head any council and as the Apostolic Canons prescribe the council should do nothing without his consent but neither will the Pope do anything without the consent of the rest. The Pope would also have appellate jurisdiction if difficulties arise between the autochephalous Churches and he would be our spiritual father and would be a spokesperson for the Church.

Some of the things the Pope would not have. He would not have the right to declare newly defined doctrine or dogma without the consent of the entire Church, most likely assembled in a council. He would have absolutely no regular jurisdiction outside his own Patriarchate. He would have no say in the election of other Patriarchs.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Shlom lokh Joe,

I hope I don’t sound ignorant here, but isn’t his exactly what the Pope does now? At least from what I have noticed. I did not know that the Pope could or has declared doctrine or dogma willy-nilly without the consent of his brother Bishops.

I have no problem with anything that you said in regard to the Pope of Rome’s role amongst the other Patriarchs. I agree that he should not meddle in the affairs of who is elected Patriarch, assuming the person isn’t teaching heresy. Even then, he should be limited in what he can do in his own right.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve heard some Orthodox people say that since Rome has been in heresy for so long, it would need to be in a period of “repentance” before it could assume its former place as first. I don’t necessarily hold this view, but it is food for thought.

I’ve heard that idea too. I don’t think it would be a big problem, in practice – full communion simply wouldn’t take place until both sides agreed on who the First Among Equals would be. (Thus a “period of repentance” would be pre-reunion.)

 

[bluejesuit]

I’ve heard that idea too. I don’t think it would be a big problem, in practice – full communion simply wouldn’t take place until both sides agreed on who the First Among Equals would be. (Thus a “period of repentance” would be pre-reunion.)

Why ask for forgiveness if you have not done something wrong? EO should do it. Not the Catholic Church. They have strayed from Jesus Christ!

If Jesus so willed to build His Church on “the rock” who are you to build your own? If you want a structure of your own, then be an architect of your own infrastructure project.

We should build the Church united. The protestants are growing. We can’t just sit here and see the world turn back from the Apostles and Jesus!

 

[Hesychios]

Why ask for forgiveness if you have not done something wrong? EO should do it. Not the Catholic Church. They have strayed from Jesus Christ!

I understand the theory upon which your opinion is based.

However it is an historical fact that the Latin church initiated the schism. The Latin church left communion with the churches of the east and subsequent to that continued to introduce novelties, widening the gap between our confessions.

One important point to remember here is that “a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.” is totally unnecessary. The bishop of Rome can simply take over the duties of primate from the Ecumenical Patriarch who is presently handling them. Whatever the EP has been doing (legitimately, not under political pressure) the Bishop of Rome can do.

If Pope Benedict needs a refresher he can ask his friend Patriarch Bartholomew just exactly what his role as Primate entails. They have known one another quite a long time, I am sure he would be glad to write the Pope a little instructional brochure.
*
Michael

*http://www.directionstoorthodoxy.org/share/mod_gallery/110.jpg