Pope arrives for meeting with Russian Orthodox leader

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please observe the rules of inter-religious dialogue.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t mean this as a complaint, but I would point out that this isn’t new.

For example, each of the following quotes are from the 1993 Balamand Agreement:

(And if you’d like to know the name of that document, it’s “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion”. )

What is new is the endorsement of these ideas, in their fullness by the MP. Until now, the MP claimed that the UGCC was engaged in illegitimate proselytism, and demanded that the Vatican restrain its activity as a precondition to any meeting.

Now, and only now, does the MP agree we have a right to exist and to minister to our faithful.
Who knows, maybe the UGCC will be able to function freely in Ukraine.

 

[dvdjs]

That document is scandalous and without authority.

Not sure about the scandal, but the key points are now signed on to not just by functionaries on a commission but by the Pope and the MP.

To understand the matter, you should read the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[recentrevert]

The issue is more complicated than what it may seem at first. I contend that there are historical examples that show that teachings can be and in fact have been reinterpreted and modified. For reunion to occur, it is not simply a matter of the Eastern Orthodox accepting all Roman Catholic teachings. With reference to the Immaculate Conception, the Roman teaching depends on the western view of original sin. The Eastern Church has a somewhat different view of original sin and AFAIK, the Roman Church did not ever condemn them for that.

The Eastern Catholics have a different way of expressing the Dogmas of the Church and the E.O. may share many of these ways of expressing them, but ultimately the Eastern Catholics believe the same as Latin Rite Catholics. Some of the apparent differences in teaching between Catholic and E.O. may simply be different ways of expressing and understanding the same thing and so these would not be obstacles to re-union. I think the main obstacle to re-union is papal primacy.

 

[Peter_J]

What is new is the endorsement of these ideas, in their fullness by the MP.

Yes I see what you mean.

Also, as I was reading today I got to thinking about this statement in #25:

It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity.

Now, the beginning and end of that sentence is clearly a reiteration of some of “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion”; however, the middle i.e. defining uniatism as “the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church” was not explicit in the 1993 document, so I think it represents progress of dialogue.

(Of course, someone might object “Well that doesn’t cover the possibility of an entire Church electing to switch from one side to the other.” But, well, dialogue is slow process. )