Ravenna Clarification Please

[mardukm]

From my understanding, the MP rejected the Ravenna Document NOT because of its contents, but because a particular Church was invited whose canonical standing is rejected by the MP.

Is my understanding correct?

Please back up your statements with documentary evidence.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

From my understanding, the MP rejected the Ravenna Document NOT because of its contents, but because a particular Church was invited whose canonical standing is rejected by the MP.

Is my understanding correct?

Please back up your statements with documentary evidence.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think they rejected it because it supposedly gave the patriarch of Constantinople pope-like qualities. They didn’t participate in the discussions because of the Estonian Apostolic Church but they later examined the document and rejected it because of the position it gave to Constantinople.

 

[mardukm]

I think they rejected it because it supposedly gave the patriarch of Constantinople pope-like qualities. They didn’t participate in the discussions because of the Estonian Apostolic Church but they later examined the document and rejected it because of the position it gave to Constantinople.

Thank you for the response. Do you have a link offhand? If not, I will look for it myself when I have the time. I would be interested to know why the MP would not grant the EP the same position it possessed in the first millenium among the Eastern Orthodox. Isn’t our goal to return to our roots in the early Church? The situation is strange to me (I mean, given all the calls for a return to the standard of the early Church).

I suppose if I want to discuss this further, it will have to be in the non-Catholic Forum.

Thank you once again.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Thank you for the response. Do you have a link offhand? If not, I will look for it myself when I have the time. I would be interested to know why the MP would not grant the EP the same position it possessed in the first millenium among the Eastern Orthodox. Isn’t our goal to return to our roots in the early Church? The situation is strange to me (I mean, given all the calls for a return to the standard of the early Church).

I suppose if I want to discuss this further, it will have to be in the non-Catholic Forum.

Thank you once again.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t have a link for it. I think his arguement is that it was not the position of the EP in the first millenium. They are argueing that the EP is not an eastern pope.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t have a link for it. I think his arguement is that it was not the position of the EP in the first millenium. They are argueing that the EP is not an eastern pope.

That’s fine, but he was clearly the head bishop of the Eastern Churches, according to the canons, and he DID have the authority to hear disputes among the Eastern bishops - once again, according to the canons…

NOTE: I’m not arguing with YOU per se.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

This is how bishop Hilarion explained it to Robert Moynahan.

I found this to be rather clarifying…

*"…from the very beginning of the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue in 1980 until 2007 the list of participants remained unchanged,…

There are a number of autonomous and autocephalous Churches which, for various reasons, are not universally recognized in the Orthodox world. For example, there is the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America and the autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan: they were never invited to such dialogues because the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not recognize their current status. If the so-called Church of Estonia, which is an autonomous structure under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, should be invited, why not invite these other churches? Why, then, not invite the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has an autonomous status under the Moscow Patiarchate? What about the autonomous Orthodox Church of Latvia? What about the Orthodox Church of Estonia that belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate and also has an autonomous status?

If the composition of the Orthodox half of the Mixed Commission should be changed, this must be done with the consent of all Orthodox Churches. If, however, there is no such consent, it is safer to preserve the composition of the Orthodox group as it was from the beginning - until the matter is resolved at a Pan-Orthodox Council."*

Here is a little background on the Estonian church issue, an older article.

This little blurb from Wikipedia gives an idea of the relative demographic and numerical details…

An agreement was reached in which local congregations could choose which jurisdiction to follow. The Orthodox community in Estonia, which accounts for about 14% of the total population, remains divided, with the majority of faithful (mostly ethnic Russians) remaining under Moscow. As of a government report of November 2003, about 20,000 believers (mostly ethnic Estonians) in 60 parishes are part of the autonomous church, with 150,000 faithful in 31 parishes, along with the monastic community of Pühtitsa, paying allegiance to Moscow.

There are two articles in Wiki, almost identical, one for each of the churches, this is a link to the other article.

 

[Amadeus]

The Ravenna Document was eventually rejected by the ROC-MP as reported by the Catholic World News on May 20, 2008:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58533

However, up to now I cannot find the official document issued by the ROC-MP.

If you will recall, Bishop Hilarion of Vienna said (in an interview in November 2007 after the Russian delegation walked out of the meeting), that the Ravenna Document should be looked into by the MP’s Theological Commission, which apparently did and issued an official statement rejecting the document.