Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[ziapueblo]

As a certain Austrian college professor who moved onto bigger things put it:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

–Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

Actually, he’s German. But, I get your point and I think that should be a good basis. Assuming that the Orthodox can trust Latins to abide by it.

I’ve looked over the CA booklet on Eastern Catholicism and I don’t see the Orthodox going for that model.

 

[ziapueblo]

The hierarchs are humans and there is years of mistrust on both sides. I think dialogue is improving but there is still a ways to go.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

What points are doing well?

 

[ziapueblo]

Ravenna, Chieti and Balamand documents are a start. Purgatory, the IC, the filioque are really non-issues now. Sure, there are people on both sides who het their knickers in a knot with this stuffs, but theologians on both sides working on dialogue, these are non-issues. Only supreme and immediate jurisdiction on the Orthodox side.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

I’m thinking the immediate issue is universal and immediate jurisdiction as well.

Eastern theology is beautiful and I think there’s little that isn’t compatible.

 

[ziapueblo]

Eastern theology is beautiful and I think there’s little that isn’t compatible.

Two sides of the same coin.

There are two levels of theology–the theologia prima (first level theology) and theologia secunda (second level theology); in Greek, the two are called, more significantly, “theologia” and “theoria”. The former is the essential, dogmatic level of theology as contained in the Church’s rule of prayer, which is to say, in the liturgy of the Church, for “lex orandi lex credendi”, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief.

Theologia secunda, on the other hand, is the result of contemplation and reflection upon the theologia prima, and its elaboration into doctrine. Doctrine, however, is culturally, historically, and linguistically conditioned–the experience of each particular Church shapes how it understands the theologia prima. So, as Pope John Paul II noted, doctrine is variable, but the underlying dogmatic faith is transcendent; we simply have to be careful not to conflate the two.

Unfortunately, for a number of centuries, the Church of Rome thought of itself in exclusionary terms as the ONLY true Church; therefore, the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church of Rome were often labeled as “dogmatic”, when, in fact, they were particular ONLY to the Church of Rome. Therefore, not everything Roman Catholics consider “dogmatic” really is. It is now understood that, as long as there is agreement on the level of the theologia prima, variety in the theologia secunda is both acceptable and desirable, for a Church that is uniformly Roman (or for that matter, uniformly Byzantine) can make no pretension to ecumenicity or catholicity.

ZP

 

[George720]

Catholics believe Christ is the head.

We believe that Christ is the Head of His Body as well…
And that the Church Hierarchy are but Servants…
And that their authority does not pass outside their geographical territories…

The Priest, for instance, cannot go into another Church and give orders…
Nor a Bishop into another Bishop’s territory…
Nor a Metropolitan into another Metropolitan’s Metropolitanate…
Nor a Patriarch into another’s Patriarchate…

Physically his church finds headship in Rome.

I understand that this is your deeply held view of your own Church’s Authority over all other Churches, and that you think it came from God Himself…
We have never in 2000 years believed such a thing…

God, for instance, in His directions to the 7 Churches in Revelation, made no admonishment to these Churches to seek the Authority of the Latin Church… Instead He instructed the Apostle John to pass on to them His Words of admonishment…

Please forgive me for being an irritant…

I’m Catholic, I don’t belive the Orthodox POV and this is a Catholic forum. I’m well aware what EO believe but we are speaking about a catholic matter concerning how the church deals with sacraments administered outside her boundaries

I must have gotten lost -

I didn’t know we were simply discussing a matter of the Latin Communion…

If I was out of line, please forgive me…

I don’t mean to irritate you…

We have had too many heretical Patriarchs committing depredations upon our Communions to place ourselves under any earthly human authority… Patriarchs have enough authority to do enough damage, and long-suffering patience is a good thing for us, and withdrawal of Communion from heretical Churches may take time, but eventually the Patriarch will pass from this life, and the matter will be resolved…

geo

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Then there are Byzantine Catholics as myself (former RC) who are drawn to Eastern liturgical traditions, Eastern theology, etc. and want a return to authentic Eastern Tradition. This was a huge struggle in the Byzantine Catholic Church my family and I used to attend (we will be received into the Orthodox faith soon).

Please don’t give up on the Byzantine Catholic Church! To be quite frank, the Byzantine Catholic Church in the U.S. has really led the way back to authentic Byzantine practice. To the best of my knowledge, the Byzantine Catholic Church was the first to implement the 1996 Instruction from Rome re returning to traditional Eastern practices. By contrast, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has some catching up to do.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you for posting the link to Orientalium Dignitas. I couldn’t find it on the Vatican website.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

My pastor is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic married priest and we love him.

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

What you said concerning theologia prima and secunda was beautiful. I was astonished and I took some time to unpack what you said.

If we can combine your statement with Saint Augustine’s In essentials, unity; in non essentials, liberty and in everything, charity; I think we’d have a heck of an idea.

Your statement is definitely ecumenical. But for catholicity, we need commonality of belief. At least in the essentials as Saint Augustine has said.

Part of what I unpacked from your statement is that I realized that there’s room for other variants of the secunda. As a Latin, I’m so used to debating Protestants. In being so focused on apologetics battles against them, I’ve lost sight that differences need not be bad.

In talking with you Easterners in this thread, I came to that insight and I thank all of you for it. @George720, @Margaret_Ann, @Isaac14 and others.

I’ve really enjoyed talking with the other half of the Church that shares the essentials of our shared Faith. You guys have a beautiful expression of theologia secunda and I don’t want to see it crushed under a Latin domination. There’s room for both of us in the Church.

As for what Margaret_Ann said: Don’t give up on Eastern Catholicism. Stay in the Church and help us keep the Light of the East going amongst us Latins please.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Even as I try to be a stoic, I detest when living people espouse the grudges of the long dead.

I understand that, and I actually agree but with one mild addition; We are the Church, for us, those people are not dead. We have no idea whether or not they are in Hell, Purgatory or Heaven, but if it’s one of latter two, they are part of our Church. If they are Heaven, they pray for us, if they are in Purgatory we pray for them and as One Church, collectively we take on their sins and try to correct them. Not saying we are to be held grudge against for that or anything, though. Even if we aren’t sorry, we live with those consequences.

Why did the American Church treat the ECs so bad many fled for the EO Churches?

Well, Archbishops did try to amercanize the culture of Catholicism (or perhaps vice versa)… something EC liturgy and tradition did not fit into…

You guys have a beautiful expression of theologia secunda and I don’t want to see it crushed under a Latin domination.

I am happy to live in time where I can freely attend authentic Byzantine Divine Liturgy or read fully Catholic yet Eastern theology… I was actually even considering a transfer, but as young as I am, I decided to just look into Latin tradition deeply too, and leave it for my future self. I absolutely love Eastern Catholicism and would very much dislike if it got “crushed”…

 

[steve-b]

[snip for space]

• Antioch ————> today Orthodox had moved to Damascus in 14th century, due to persecutions. Those persecutions have only intensified massively, today

OrbisNonSufficit:

How do you mean “Antioch —> today Orthodox” part? Do you mean that Damascus has largest Orthodox population out of Christian ones today?

meaning, since the Chieti doc is talking about Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical dialogue, I was merely making the point, the Orthodox in the 14th century moved from Antioch to Damascus.

If I understand your response, it’s fair to say you disagree with the Chieti statement?

OrbisNonSufficit:

I think steve’s point is largely that there is nothing to agree or disagree in Chieti Document. It practically states nothing concrete and neither does it make any hard-line conclusions, hence steve has no clear opinion on it… would that be correct?

Yes

in addition, since Chieti was proposing looking at the 1st millennium for some history on primacy, one could ask how far back in the 1st millennium does one go? The 5th century when the Pentarchy was invented by the East? Or keep going back when the Pentarchy didn’t exist?

As IN

going back to the beginning,

Everybody looked to the Church of Rome, where Peter’s see is, -----> and Peter’s successors come from.

Quotes from Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, Cyprian etc etc, make the point

Please note that the Pentarchy wasn’t really a recognized institution… until the 7th century which saw the fall of possibly the largest at the time; Alexandria.

Islam ripped through the East , with this motivation, "convert die or be my slave"

And the East, which chose to divide along ethnic lines, and patriarchs, instead of remaining one with Rome, were easy pickings for Islam that was one.

Today, with the exception of maybe parts of Italy and the Iberian peninsula, Catholic churches in Europe are more anthropological relics and tourist destinations …

OrbisNonSufficit:

I largely disagree. While it is true that many Catholics are Catholics for sake of tradition (small t), there are also many who are truly living the faith. Secularism will indeed grow and consume a lot, and Church will lose time and time again, and we are in timeframe where that is probably happening… but it is not as rampant yet.

Agreed

OrbisNonSufficit:

I have impression that Chieti Document seems to be either a bit biased or takes too much viewpoint from one side. When I became Christian, I did not completely hold to idea of Papacy nor Catholicism as a whole, and I chose to be Catholic after using largely Orthodox and Protestant sources… it just seemed that even few Catholic ones I encountered happened to have much better arguments, at least for me personally.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When the Chieti doc ignores answers already given to 2 rather large authority issues as in Pentarchy and 1st among equals, as if there is no historical answer ever given to that, from a teaching Catholic source which I’ve posted in the past on other threads

If your contention is correct that this contradicts the Chieti statement, and indeed would trump the Chieti statement, then I’m left with the conclusion that the Catholic side of the Joint International Commission is not trustworthy and the Orthodox should be very wary of what is agreed. I sure hope this is not the case.

I’ll just say

You are the one who pushed me to respond what I think of the document, which is an ongoing dialogue.

So I responded by giving quotes… Are those quotes from me? No

 

[Hume]

Islam ripped through the East , with this motivation, "convert die or be my slave"

And the East, which chose to divide along ethnic lines, and patriarchs, instead of remaining one with Rome, were easy pickings for Islam that was one.

Lots of things wrong here.

First, they didn’t “choose” to be any more divided from Rome than Rome chose to be divided by them. I understand this is mostly a religious statement and would have let it go, but I’ll address simply for those out there who might actually confuse this for history.

Second, Rome could have done nothing. How many times have we read that Rome couldn’t even stop the crusader sack of Constantinople despite the 13th century being the practical “high-water mark” for Papal power?

Third, Islam was not “one”. There were several major Islamic powers at that time with the Shia/Sunni dispute well underway.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Islam ripped through the East , with this motivation, "convert die or be my slave"

And the East, which chose to divide along ethnic lines, and patriarchs, instead of remaining one with Rome, were easy pickings for Islam that was one.

Lots of things wrong here.

First, they didn’t “choose” to be any more divided from Rome than Rome chose to be divided by them. I understand this is mostly a religious statement and would have let it go, but I’ll address simply for those out there who might actually confuse this for history.

Second, Rome could have done nothing. How many times have we read that Rome couldn’t even stop the crusader sack of Constantinople despite the 13th century being the practical “high-water mark” for Papal power?

Third, Islam was not “one”. There were several major Islamic powers at that time with the Shia/Sunni dispute well underway.

Where did you get your understanding from

 

[Hume]

Where did you get your understanding from

Books written by men who weren’t trying to defend a religion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Where did you get your understanding from

Books written by men who weren’t trying to defend a religion.

You call that a reference?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

steve-b:

Where did you get your understanding from

Books written by men who weren’t trying to defend a religion.

You call that a reference?

In fairness, you’re being extremely vague. What do you want, for example, to show that you’re absurdly wrong in your view that “Islam was ‘One’”. Are you basically asking me to cut and paste a map of Europe and the Middle East from 1200?

No thanks.