C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
Thanks for that. It’s very easy to lose hope in the ecumenical endeavor, but as Pope John Paul II said (I’m paraphrasing), there’s no turning back!
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
The point is not about the personal holiness of any individual bishop at all. That’s not for anyone to judge. A question was asked about how we can trust a bishop (or something to that effect), so I answered. Only due to his fidelity to the Orthodox faith, same as any other person. Bishops can be, and sometimes are, wrong. I think I already posted the letter from the Tewahedo Church in Kansas about their Archbishop teaching wrong things and disciplining priests for not going along with them. That’s wrong. If someone stands against the faith and introduces novelties into it that are absent from the Fathers, we stand against them. Not because the Church is to be governed by laity, but because it is to be governed by Orthodoxy.
So you question the ecumenical councils that you’ve accepted together with us and the Byzantines? Because that was the Orthodox Church working together at a universal level just as surely as when synods meet today to discuss problems and challenges facing the Church. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Creed, the Fathers, and the Councils.
Interesting words. Do you mean that you see the Latin exercise of primacy as unbalanced?
That’s good, I guess.
“Universal dimension” could mean many things, but I do not think you will find among the Fathers anything like the modern Roman understanding of what that means. Such an understanding is not consistent with Patristic ecclesiology at all. (Roman) Pope Gregory I famously decried the idea of a “universal bishop”, saying that whoever should call himself by that title or desire it is the precursor to the anti-Christ. Gregory I was Pope of Rome in the late 5th-early 6th century (d. 604), well within the first millennium. How things have changed since then in Rome.
Our bishops can and do also do that, but not infallibly. This is not a wound to the church, but a recognition that only God is infallible. So we trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and keep us all on the straight path not any less than you do, but this is not manifested by granting any extra powers to anybody. That’s all.
H
hazcompat
Guest
Second Reading
From the treatise On the Trinity by Saint Hilary, bishop
The unity of the faithful in God through the incarnation of the Word and the sacrament of the eucharist
We believe that the Word became flesh and that we receive his flesh in the Lord’s Supper. How then can we fail to believe that he really dwells within us? When he became man, he actually clothed himself in our flesh, uniting it to himself for ever. In the sacrament of his body he actually gives us his own flesh, which he has united to his divinity. This is why we are all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. He is in us through his flesh and we are in him. With him we form a unity which is in God.
…
sometimes I think none of you really have ever been in the light that is better than life?
In the Eucharist we form one body and we cannot be separated!
impossible!
Peace
From the treatise On the Trinity by Saint Hilary, bishop
The unity of the faithful in God through the incarnation of the Word and the sacrament of the eucharist
We believe that the Word became flesh and that we receive his flesh in the Lord’s Supper. How then can we fail to believe that he really dwells within us? When he became man, he actually clothed himself in our flesh, uniting it to himself for ever. In the sacrament of his body he actually gives us his own flesh, which he has united to his divinity. This is why we are all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. He is in us through his flesh and we are in him. With him we form a unity which is in God.
…
sometimes I think none of you really have ever been in the light that is better than life?
In the Eucharist we form one body and we cannot be separated!
impossible!
Peace
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
Actually, you were right in that I missed the rhetoric of your post. It might surprise you, but I did not consider your reply sharp at all. Stick around longer, and you’ll realise that CAF has some really militant and aggressive posters. On the other hand, I hardly detected any aggression or snarkiness in your post.
In fact, you make some substantial arguments, and I acknowledge them. I actually agree with you that the inability for the Orthodox Church to speak with a united voice can sometimes be a stumbling block for them, and that the powerlessness of the Orthodox Church to act in concert is hardly an optimal approach. However, I cannot propose any solutions for them, as I am not Orthodox, and I know that the methods we use (such as the Pope) are not the sort they are willing to accept.
V
Vico
Guest
The original address given by H.H. Blessed John Paul II is The Spirit and the Filioque Debate (1990):
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
Later a document was produced by the *Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity *but the following is not available on the Vatican website: The Greek and Latin Traditions About the Procession of the Holy Spirit [1996]
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm
Metropolitan John Zizoulous wrote his reaction to the Pontifical Commission statement:
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm
SCOBA mentions this Pontifical Commission statement also.
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
This is going to be a positive post.
I’ve been arguing that Orthodoxy was ecclesially lacking at the universal level, but I don’t think it has been clear, because I’m not interested in criticising the Orthodox directly.
So here’s a list of what Christ’s gift of the Petrine authority gives me, as a Latin catholic, in the two countries in which I’ve spent substantial time (Mexico and the U.S.). Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters would have a different list, and not all of these would apply to the non-Latin churches in a hypothetical Catholic-Orthodox reunion:
The Gift of the Petrine Ministry
I’ve been arguing that Orthodoxy was ecclesially lacking at the universal level, but I don’t think it has been clear, because I’m not interested in criticising the Orthodox directly.
So here’s a list of what Christ’s gift of the Petrine authority gives me, as a Latin catholic, in the two countries in which I’ve spent substantial time (Mexico and the U.S.). Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters would have a different list, and not all of these would apply to the non-Latin churches in a hypothetical Catholic-Orthodox reunion:
The Gift of the Petrine Ministry
- Freedom from State Interference The governments of my countries have virtually no influence in the life of the Church
- Freedom from Nationalism Mexicans feel extremely blessed that the Virgin of Guadalupe appeared in Tepeyac. It would be very easy to develop stories of being a suffering race, a chosen people, upon which the fate of the world depends. Being anchored in the wider Church by the Petrine ministry discourages the development of these self-aggrandizing myths.
- A Clear Role of the Episcopacy The bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the clear teaching office of the Church. It is by being united to my bishop that I’m incorporated into the Body of Christ, according to Ireneaus. I do not judge my bishop based on my own understanding of the faith. The bishops judgment trumps the Fathers of the Church, contemporary theologians, monks or ascetics. If I move cities, I’ll have a new bishop, but his teaching will meet the same baseline as my former bishop, because he’s also in union with the bishop of Rome.
- Relatively Clear Jurisdictional Structure I can apply for a canonical transfer of particular churches one time, with the approval of both bishops. But I cannot escape obedience by changing churches at a whim. Yes, I consider this a gift.
- Correction of Regional Errors In Latin America, the legitimate and illegitimate forms of liberation theology were clarified by Rome. In the United States, women’s ordination and life issues have been questioned by Catholics, and Rome clarified the questions.
- A Fully Catholic Theological Outlook The Church recommends the teaching of Doctors of the Church, who embrace a range of languages, eras, and theological approaches. Thus, yes, we have Latin doctors (Jerome, Ambrose, etc.), but also very many Greek doctors (Cyril, Basil, John Chrysostom, etc.), Syriac (Ephraim the Syrian), and including French, German, Italian, and Spanish doctors up to the modern age (Therese of Lisieux). The list includes many women. More contemporary thinkers that represent helpful doctrinal articulation are made cardinals (Henri de Lubac-French, Hans urs Von Balthasar-Swiss, and Avery Dulles-U.S.). This allows for a wide exposure to the authentic Tradition, and prevents one from focussing narrowly on one’s ethnic group/language. Because I have guidance at the universal level, my theo
- Clear Principles for Sacraments It is very simple to establish if someone’s baptism or holy orders are valid or not.
- A bulwark against the culture of death Especially in the United States, the dominical teaching on divorce, and (against overwhelming opposition) birth control, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, among others. I seriously doubt this teaching would’ve been upheld had the region been left to itself.
- Protection against corruption As is well known, Mexico has had problems with political corruption, bought elections, nepotism, and drug cartels. I, for one, am glad for Rome’s involvement in the selection of our bishops. I’m glad it selects bishops in the U.S. as well, but for other reasons.
- Ability to reformulate doctrine/dogma Maybe because the Catholic Church has always had to bounce back and forth between Greek and Latin (all those parallel texts in Migne), the Church is willing to consider that the same dogmatic truth can be expressed differently in different languages/cultures. I think the Church tries to understand/incorporate expressions that are outside of her experience. This does not mean changing the Deposit of Faith. But we can (and do) express the ancient truths using different terminology. This probably wouldn’t be possible without a central point of reference (the Holy See) to help us explain ourselves to ourselves.
- Ability to clarify questions of doctrine in a timely manner If there’s a theological misunderstanding, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith can issue a clarification quite easily. This makes it easy to situate the parameters of the Catholic faith, which are clear, consistent, public, universal, and spacious enough to allow for many different theologies to legitimately and consistently inhabit the same communion.
D
dzheremi
Guest
This is going to be a very positive post, too, because I love my Church. You could even say I’m…OO-positive.
(Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself…)- Freedom from State Interference Admittedly the Copts have not had this basically at any point in their history, though it is not for lack of trying! Some of our greatest saints are remembered and beloved precisely for having gotten as far away from earthly power as possible (St. Anthony, Amma Syncletica, etc.), though when the state does decide it wants to tell us what to do, we have no trouble standing up for our faith.
- Freedom from Nationalism All things considered, I would say that our respective churches are roughly the same in this respect – there are national churches reflecting the history of Christianity in particular places, but they are all united by fidelity to common doctrine that permits us all to share the same cup. And I am proof (as are the hundreds of new “Copts” in Mexico, Bolivia, Fiji, Zambia, Kenya, etc.) that we are not a “nationalistic” communion in any kind of exclusionary sense.
- A Clear Role of the Episcopacy Indeed, you can read it on the door of our church: “St. Pishoy Coptic Orthodox Church, of the Southern United States Diocese”. This diocese is served by HG Bishop Youssef, and any who wonder about his teachings may access them via the diocesan website at suscopts.org. One thing we would disagree with is with your contention that the Bishop’s judgment trumps that of the Fathers. If we wish to preserve the faith (and we do), then whatever HG says had better be in line with the Fathers of our Church! (And bishops, even Popes, have been deposed in the past by synods, so there are very real potential consequences.)
- Relatively Clear Jurisdictional Structure The reasoning you gave here was interesting, about “canonical transfer of churches”. We don’t have such a thing (there’s no need for it), so I guess this is a plus for RCs who apparently need it, but…say I were to move to Ethiopia. If I brought the necessary documentation from my (Coptic) bishop, I would be received immediately by my new Ethiopian bishop. There is no sense in which I would have to seek out a Coptic Church in which to worship, and most importantly no sense by which it could ever be appropriate that I “un-enroll” from the COC in order to become a member of one of the other churches of the communion. I would effectively become a member by showing up and being in communion with both churches already.
- Correction of Regional Errors The only difference that I can see here is that regional errors are corrected by whatever bishop oversees the region. If that doesn’t work for some reason, the higher people in the church (archbishop, patriarch, etc.) can be appealed to, but such cases are quite rare.
- A Fully Catholic Theological Outlook As Orthodox have a different operational definition of “Catholic” than do RCs (it is not simply “found everywhere”, but “accepted throughout the whole”, or “complete”), it would not matter what range of languages or cultures the Fathers come from. But it is still the case that there are many different people of many different cultures (yes, we even have Latins too…St. Arsenius, pray for us!) that have continued to guide the Orthodox Church throughout the centuries. So I would say that our churches are probably closer to one another in this than you realize.
- Clear Principles for Sacraments Orthodoxy does not have a concept of “validity” regarding the sacraments in the first place. As a closed communion, we have faith in our own sacraments/mysteries, without having to say anything about another’s. Any variation you may see in the administration or consideration of the sacraments is via the application of economia, which is rooted in the Savior’s granting of authority to the apostles to “bind and loose”.
D
dzheremi
Guest
- A bulwark against the culture of death This is an interesting concept as it relies on a Western definition. I will openly admit that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not agree with the RCC on everything (we’re not officially opposed to the death penalty), but if we can look at the USA and Mexico and say that the RCC is doing good relative to those particular countries’ social ills, then certainly the same can be said about the Church in Egypt in standing against divorce (readily available to the Muslim population), abortion (ditto), corruption (witness HH Pope Tawadros II’s pointed comments to Pres. Morsi recently), etc. The only difference that I can see is in contraception, in that the Church has wisely chosen to treat this as a pastoral matter rather than forcing everyone to tow an imaginary doctrinal line that has virtually no effect on rates of contracepting (and from the billion or so children running around like a bunch of screaming monkeys after liturgy today, I’d wager that most Copts do not contracept…heck, they/we can only engage in baby-making for a fraction of the year in the first place, so if contraception were widespread, we’d probably run out of people before too long).
- Protection against corruption I think this is a society-wide problem (and not just in Mexico; everywhere), but at the same time I haven’t seen very many examples of people clamoring to become Coptic bishops such that simony (which I take it is what you’re referring to when saying that you’re glad that Rome chooses your bishops) would even be a realistic issue. There were some concerns around the election that a few of the initial candidates for the Papacy were ego-driven, but they were weeded out pretty fast, and hey…we let a blindfolded child make the final choice…can’t get more free from influence than that!
- Ability to reformulate doctrine/dogma As far as expressing the same thing using new terminology, I think that’s what all churches say they’re doing. It is a question whether everyone agrees that that’s always what’s happening, but again, this is something that we can do without an infallible bishop.
- Ability to clarify questions of doctrine in a timely manner Ya can’t get quicker than “ask your priest”!
(This is the Orthodox answer to everything.) If you don’t like that, “ask your bishop” also works. There is theoretically no limit on this, and indeed our beloved departed Pope Shenouda III had a weekly Q & A session held at the Coptic Cathedral every Wednesday (?) for decades on end, where he would literally sit there and answer any question brought to him. He also did this outside of Egypt, in English, on his frequent travels to the USA and elsewhere. I never got to meet HH (though friends of mine did, several times), but there are about a million videos of HH on Youtube from his weekly meetings. I think the RC Pope has weekly audiences too, right? So maybe we’re similar in that, too.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Answers vary. An Anglican, for example, would say that they are “branches of the same church”.
A
Anastasia13
Guest
Can you elaborate and explain a little more how you get from this that they are one and the same? Please include what are the elements of which you speak.
V
Vico
Guest
Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote specifically on this in 1995 in an On commitment to Ecumenism (Ut Unum Sint).10. … The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, and at the same time acknowledges that “many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity”.11
“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.12
11. … Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html
The elements are detailed in *Lumen Gentium. (the Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican II) and this is referred to a quoted in Ut Unum Sint:
*12. The same Dogmatic Constitution listed at length “the elements of sanctification and truth” which in various ways are present and operative beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: “For there are many who honour Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and of action, and who show a true religious zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by Baptism, through which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and receive other sacraments within their own Churches or Ecclesial Communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist, and cultivate devotion towards the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise, we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also he gives his gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with his sanctifying power. Some indeed he has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd”.
The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.16 Truth demands that all this be recognized.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
You might think that “if the Eastern Orthodox are includes, it would also include the Oriental Orthodox”, but, to share my opinion for what it is worth, I see Rome and the Eastern Orthodox as one wounded Church. But I see the Oriental Orthodox as another Church, seemingly like the Roman/Eastern Church only because it has been wounded too. I see it as another Church because if you go back to before the time of the Roman confederacy of the 5 Patriarchs you see Alexandria as not only the most prominent of any Church anywhere in the world, but I think it can be proven that it was even the very first Church established, yes even before Jerusalem! After the Roman Church was established the cities of Rome an Alexandria were at the start at odds with each other politically, and in those days Church and State were NOT divided. But certain agreements were made and the 4 Patriarchs were established (not 5 because there was no Constantinople yet) and of course Rome was number one, but Alexandria was number two. So I see Rome and the Eastern Orthodox joined at the hip, but Alexandria (the Oriental Orthodox basically) is a Church all of it’s own from its start.
In theory Jerusalem would also be a Church on it’s own, but I don’t see that it is because what is their now has lost all connection with the historical Church of Jerusalem that once was. But Alexandria, though wounded, still has a living tradition that goes right back to the Apostle Mark.
H
hazcompat
Guest
Second reading
From a homily on the Song of Songs by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, bishop
The glory you gave to me, I have given to them
When love has entirely cast out fear, and fear has been transformed into love, then the unity brought us by our savior will be fully realized, for all men will be united with one another through their union with the one supreme Good. They will possess the perfection ascribed to the dove, according to our interpretation of the text: One alone is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only child of her mother, her chosen one.
Our Lord’s words in the gospel bring out the meaning of this text more clearly. After having conferred all power on his disciples by his blessing, he obtained many other gifts for them by his prayer to the Father. Among these was included the greatest gift of all, which was that they were no longer to be divided in their judgment of what was right and good, for they were all to be united to the one supreme Good. As the Apostle says, they were to be bound together with the bonds of peace in the unity that comes from the Holy Spirit. They were to be made one body and one spirit by the one hope to which they were all called. We shall do better, however, to quote the sacred words of the gospel itself. I pray, the Lord says, that they all may be one; that as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, so they also may be one in us.
Now the bond that creates this unity is glory. That the Holy Spirit is called glory no one can deny if he thinks carefully about the Lord’s words: The glory you gave to me, I have given to them. In fact, he gave this glory to his disciples when he said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Although he had always possessed it, even before the world existed, he himself received this glory when he put on human nature. Then, when his human nature had been glorified by the Spirit, the glory of the Spirit was passed on to all his kin, beginning with his disciples. This is why he said: The glory you gave to me, I have given to them, so that they may be one as we are one. With me in them and you in me, I want them to be perfectly one.
Whoever has grown from infancy to manhood and attained to spiritual maturity possesses the mastery over his passions and the purity that makes it possible for him to receive the glory of the Spirit. He is that perfect dove upon whom the eyes of the bridegroom rest when he says: One alone is my dove, my perfect one.
Peace
- Status