In what ways do the Orthodox defend their independence?

[Nine_Two]

I wanted to address this issue:

Montalo was basically correct that the Orthodox reject the validity of Catholic sacraments.
Many Orthodox do not accept the validity of Catholic baptisms; I have even heard them say the Pope is not a baptised Christian.

I said “many” because there is not the central authority that we have in Catholicism and you may find different opinions amongst the Orthodox.

Montalo,
You might find this of interest. The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue

Because there is the element of not knowing they are often repeated, something Catholics also practice when there is uncertainty. This is distinct from an outright rejection.

 

[Ex_aedibus]

Interestingly enough, the Russians have generally been open to receiving converts from Catholicism and other Christian churches and ecclesial communities without rebaptism. Bishop TIKHON, former Bishop of San Francisco and the West addressed this issue in a pastoral letter to his priests and faithful.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/tikhon_reception_heretics.htm

However, in Greece, it is another matter.

 

[dvdjs]

Because there is the element of not knowing they are often repeated, something Catholics also practice when there is uncertainty. This is distinct from an outright rejection.

The Catholic practice of conditional baptism is used when there is uncertainty if a baptism of established form had actually taken place. I don’t think that this practice is an analogous to anything in the mix of Orthodox practices on rebaptism.

 

[Nine_Two]

Interestingly enough, the Russians have generally been open to receiving converts from Catholicism and other Christian churches and ecclesial communities without rebaptism. Bishop TIKHON, former Bishop of San Francisco and the West addressed this issue in a pastoral letter to his priests and faithful.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/tikhon_reception_heretics.htm

However, in Greece, it is another matter.

It is unfortunate since the canons are quite clear on the matter. Baptism doesn’t require a recognized priest, intent is the most important thing.

 

[Contarini]

Another book I would strongly recommend is Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter. Clement was an Orthodox theologian, but I’ve seen Orthodox on the Internet say that he was an Orthodox theologian more admired by Catholics than by Orthodox. If so, I think that’s unfortunate.

The point that nearly all ecumenical theologians on both sides would make is that Roman primacy was clearly acknowledged in the early Church (and on more than just a political basis, contrary to some Orthodox today), but at the same time that the primacy functioned in the context of an ecclesiology of communion and conciliarity. Most Catholic theologians and scholars today would agree that the exercise of Roman primacy changed quite dramatically over the centuries in ways that were not entirely healthy, and that for reunion to occur the primacy needs to be reinvisioned in ways closer to the early Church. (Of course, some Catholics would rejoin that these changes were simply legitimate development and should not be reversed.)

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

Another book I would strongly recommend is Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter. Clement was an Orthodox theologian, but I’ve seen Orthodox on the Internet say that he was an Orthodox theologian more admired by Catholics than by Orthodox. If so, I think that’s unfortunate.

The point that nearly all ecumenical theologians on both sides would make is that Roman primacy was clearly acknowledged in the early Church (and on more than just a political basis, contrary to some Orthodox today), but at the same time that the primacy functioned in the context of an ecclesiology of communion and conciliarity. Most Catholic theologians and scholars today would agree that the exercise of Roman primacy changed quite dramatically over the centuries in ways that were not entirely healthy, and that for reunion to occur the primacy needs to be reinvisioned in ways closer to the early Church. (Of course, some Catholics would rejoin that these changes were simply legitimate development and should not be reversed.)

Edwin

While I would agree with what you say the book says (having not read it myself), the problem with the Roman Church reverting to such a state is that they’ve doctrinally defined those changes.

 

[Contarini]

While I would agree with what you say the book says (having not read it myself), the problem with the Roman Church reverting to such a state is that they’ve doctrinally defined those changes.

I am not sure–and I think many ecumenical theologians on all sides would agree with me–that Vatican I poses an insuperable obstacle. It would certainly be nice, from a certain perspective, if the Roman Communion would simply renounce Vatican I. However, given the chaos and uncertainty that this would cause in Western Catholicism, it would perhaps be even nicer if Vatican I could be interpreted in a way that did not contradict the historic, Orthodox (in the theological and not just factional sense of the word) understanding of primacy.

Perhaps you have other definitions in mind apart from Vatican I, but that seems to be the main one!

 

[Nine_Two]

I am not sure–and I think many ecumenical theologians on all sides would agree with me–that Vatican I poses an insuperable obstacle. It would certainly be nice, from a certain perspective, if the Roman Communion would simply renounce Vatican I. However, given the chaos and uncertainty that this would cause in Western Catholicism, it would perhaps be even nicer if Vatican I could be interpreted in a way that did not contradict the historic, Orthodox (in the theological and not just factional sense of the word) understanding of primacy.

Perhaps you have other definitions in mind apart from Vatican I, but that seems to be the main one!

No Vatican I is the main issue. I’m not sure how you can reinterprete it to be compatible with an Orthodox understanding. I’ve heard some Catholics try to interprete it as meaning the Pope is only infallible in the West, but that makes no sense since it violates the meaning of infallibility.

 

[Contarini]

No Vatican I is the main issue. I’m not sure how you can reinterprete it to be compatible with an Orthodox understanding. I’ve heard some Catholics try to interprete it as meaning the Pope is only infallible in the West, but that makes no sense since it violates the meaning of infallibility.

Well, one starting point would be Avery Dulles’ suggestion that while Vatican I rules out the consent of the Church as necessary for papal infallibility, the consent of the Church might be necessary in order to discern that the Pope had spoken infallibly.

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, one starting point would be Avery Dulles’ suggestion that while Vatican I rules out the consent of the Church as necessary for papal infallibility, the consent of the Church might be necessary in order to discern that the Pope had spoken infallibly.

Edwin

That sounds like wordplay to back away from the idea that the pope can speak infallibly at all.

 

[Contarini]

That sounds like wordplay to back away from the idea that the pope can speak infallibly at all.

Possibly,. There are, of course, those who think that the decrees of Nicaea and Chalcedon are “wordplay.” The Christological Councils in particular (Ephesus, Chalcedon, 1 Constantinople, 2 Constantinople) each correct misinterpretations of the previous one in a manner that could be described as “backing away” from previous affirmations. But those of us who stand within the Chalcedonian tradition see this delicate dance as needed clarification and refinement.

Edwin