…someone who expects Constantinople to be capable of “integrating” the Orthodox Churches is someone who has a rather mistaken view on what Orthodoxy is and how the ecclesial structure works.
Well, technicallysteve-b:
…someone who expects Constantinople to be capable of “integrating” the Orthodox Churches is someone who has a rather mistaken view on what Orthodoxy is and how the ecclesial structure works.
Do you have a better suggestion then, to give to the Vatican?
As an Orthodox priest back in 2004 said to me in one of these internet discussions, Re: 1st among equals, is that it is a nonsense term in his view… If one is first then all aren’t equal, and if all are equal no ONE can be first. I agreed with his point and added, If everybody is in charge then no ONE is in charge. IOW, bottom line, Orthodoxy has authority issues
It’s much easier to deal with order and authority issues when there is an organized and recognized institution in place to handle such matters as order and authority
So in other words, you think the Orthodox need an authority structure like the Roman church?
Since No one at the Vatican asked me what I think about this.But if my understanding of Orthodox ecclesiastical structure is off, by all means correct me.
But fair warning, it takes pretty good sourcing to change my mind. As such, may not be worth your effort
And amazingly enough, the very commission charged with that dialog (and understanding that protocol) has acknowledged that Rome never exercised authority over the Eastern churches when we were in communion.
Considering it was Jesus who made Peter the leader,steve-b:
So in other words, you think the Orthodox need an authority structure like the Roman church?
I agree with your understanding of Orthodox ecclesiastical structure. However I do not agree with this:
Nothing can protect poor leadership from making knee-jerk declarations at all, except God. I simply think authority issues in Orthodoxy are very high atm, with Moscrow-Istanbul and Jerusalem-Antioch issues. There is no reliable way to know which jurisdiction is right- something that concerns those in whose countries there are “schismatic” Churches, yet others outside this country do not need to care. It seems very messy to me. Also, Orthodoxy can not renounce anything dogmatic either… but there is not enough authority to declare anything dogmatic at the moment, so while there is no issue with those declarations, it is because they aren’t possible.
I agree.
My take on situations is that there has to be final authority. By no means should it be centralized like Latin Church is, but there has to be some final arbiter, something that is not as confusing as current Orthodox model is.
Not really. They acknowledged that there was no canonical jurisdiction, not that there was no authority to intervene. Actually, Pope St. Gregory says he can annul Eastern synods with strike of a pen, yet defends authority and rights of Eastern Patriarchs. I would be up for Pope St. Gregory’s model of the Church, where each Patriarch is given highest honor and respect, but in case of necessity Rome can and should intervene- Pope Honorius being condemned for not intervening when he should have (okay, it was not in the East but still same concept).
Orbis: to quote directly from the Chieti statement, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East”
Point is, if there is even right to intervene, there is some authority. Otherwise Papal intervention would have no effect other than some other people joining one side in conflict. Popes did not meddle in affairs of other Patriarchs unless necessary, but when they deemed it necessary, their formulations did indicate that their decisions were final, binding and not just pleas or opinions.
Are you referring to the last sentence
Look, I’m not going to continue playing word games after this reply other than to point out that an appeal still has to be initiated by someone. We, Orthodox wouldn’t assume the Pope (or Ecumenical Patriarch for that matter) could insert themselves into a situation outside of their jurisdiction without being appealed to.
Yes, as we’ve discussed ad nauseum in multiple threads, I understand this is an ongoing dialog.
I apologize. I meant to point out that it is reliant on wording, not to play the word game or initiate it. I am simply saying that in effect, if any Patriarchate has some problems that need to be solved by higher authority, an appeal would have to be made until Pope could actually act. Perhaps if East and West really united, Ecumenical Councils expressing communion of the Church would be enough to safeguard against those instances… so I get your point.