The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByzCathCantor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nine_Two said:
Primacy and supremacy are two very different things, and I’ve never seen anything from the Father’s supporting Supremacy.
Click to expand...
\

Honestly, from what i have been searching through and correct me if im wrong, but primacy is that Peter holds a higher honor, and Supremacy is Peter has Universal Jurisdiction.

If this statement is true, what do you mean by Higher Honor? I see no difference between that and Universal Jurisdiction because having a higher honor means that one gets to have special powers over those who do not hold this high honor.
 
Nine_Two said:
Actually you’ll find that very few of the Church fathers were canonized by the Pope, as the system for much of the first millennium was considerably different than it is today. Additionally we use the term “Church” a bit differently. While we believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, we believe this church to be made up of smaller local churches, of which there are far more than two, but of which the Roman and Byzantine rites were the largest (though by no means the only ones).
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm… then explain to me why there are Orthodox Churches that are not in Communion with 14(15) autocephalous churches considered the Orthodox Community? I don’t see how you believe that the Church is made up of smaller churches when you clearly have made an official count of churches and deny any others that have popped up or come from some of the autocephalous churches.
 
Bballer32 said:
Hmmmmmm… then explain to me why there are Orthodox Churches that are not in Communion with 14(15) autocephalous churches considered the Orthodox Community? I don’t see how you believe that the Church is made up of smaller churches when you clearly have made an official count of churches and deny any others that have popped up or come from some of the autocephalous churches.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church itself is made up of 23 Churches, one very large Church (the Latin Catholic Church) and 22 other smaller Churches (the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches).

What is markedly different in the Catholic Church (vs. Orthodoxy) is the manner in which they are bound to each other.
 
Bballer32 said:
Yes,will do… I just wanted to hear these last two responses and i will stop…

Sorry for the inconvenience :o
Click to expand...
No worries. I have been the cause of the occasional thread drift/derailment myself in my time on various forums. 🙂

+Pax
 
Bballer32 said:
Hmmmmmm… then explain to me why there are Orthodox Churches that are not in Communion with 14(15) autocephalous churches considered the Orthodox Community? I don’t see how you believe that the Church is made up of smaller churches when you clearly have made an official count of churches and deny any others that have popped up or come from some of the autocephalous churches.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your comment. There is the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and there is the Oriental Orthodox Communion, both are distinct from each other, but both follow the ancient practice of being made up of autocephalous churches.

The number is not static, and new ones have come into being over time. There are a number of churches that call themselves Orthodox who are not accepted by either Orthodox Communion - much as there are Churches that call themselves Catholic who are not counted as part of the Roman Catholic Communion.
 
Bballer32 said:
\

Honestly, from what i have been searching through and correct me if im wrong, but primacy is that Peter holds a higher honor, and Supremacy is Peter has Universal Jurisdiction.

If this statement is true, what do you mean by Higher Honor? I see no difference between that and Universal Jurisdiction because having a higher honor means that one gets to have special powers over those who do not hold this high honor.
Click to expand...
Since when does high honour equal power over those of lesser honour? That is certainly not something we accept. High position does not equal universal jurisdiction. If you want to claim universal jurisdiction you’re going to need something concrete.
 
Nine_Two said:
Since when does high honour equal power over those of lesser honour? That is certainly not something we accept. High position does not equal universal jurisdiction. If you want to claim universal jurisdiction you’re going to need something concrete.
Click to expand...
It is best not to hang the discussion on a word since there are multiple meanings of honor.

Merriam-Webster
honor 3** :** a person of superior standing["]]("http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standing[2) —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>
standing 1b : a position from which one may assert or enforce legal rights and duties
 
The question still stands, though, doesn’t it? Since there is more than one definition of the word, it makes sense that perhaps Orthodox see “honor” not as conferring a power to rule over others, while for Catholics it does mean that. So, given that “ruling over” is not necessarily part of the job, why would you say that it is?
 
dzheremi said:
The question still stands, though, doesn’t it? Since there is more than one definition of the word, it makes sense that perhaps Orthodox see “honor” not as conferring a power to rule over others, while for Catholics it does mean that. So, given that “ruling over” is not necessarily part of the job, why would you say that it is?
Click to expand...
I believe that the Eastern Orthodox give the primacy of honor to the Bishop of Rome only when there is no schism. Schism exists as a result of doctrinal issues.

In The Orthodox Church News Magazine Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007,Volume 43:
“Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on “Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority” was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.”

oca.org/holy-synod/statements/fr-kishkovsky/primacy-theme-of-catholic-orthodox-dialogue
 
Fair enough. I just meant that if there’s more than one meaning, why is one privileged over the other?
 
Vico said:
It is best not to hang the discussion on a word since there are multiple meanings of honor.

Merriam-Webster
honor 3** :** a person of superior standing["]]("http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standing[2) —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>
standing 1b : a position from which one may assert or enforce legal rights and duties
Click to expand...
That’s a far cry from Universal Jurisdiction.

In Commonwealth countries we give a number of individuals the title “Honourable” or “Right Honourable”, however these titles, for the most part, don’t imply power over anyone, they indicate a standing in society which gives them no rights over others (though in a few cases additional titles may confer on them such a position, but that is only indirectly related to the title of “Honourable”).
 
Nine_Two said:
That’s a far cry from Universal Jurisdiction.

In Commonwealth countries we give a number of individuals the title “Honourable” or “Right Honourable”, however these titles, for the most part, don’t imply power over anyone, they indicate a standing in society which gives them no rights over others (though in a few cases additional titles may confer on them such a position, but that is only indirectly related to the title of “Honourable”).
Click to expand...
I am not in favor of using simple words like high position or high honor. They are unclear.

Some people misinterpreted Vatican I. Blessed John Paul II gave audience to this topic in 1993 in The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html
 
dzheremi said:
Please read more carefully before you accuse me of viciousness or unfounded attacks. These are mostly factual statements, or inferences drawn from factual statements and logic (e.g., I am assuming that either Mardukm is right in his interpretations, or I am right; since we hold conflicting opinions as to what these documents mean and don’t mean, it is extremely unlikely, not to mention irrelevant, that we should both be right. What IS relevant is what Nine_Two has said, regarding the reality of our severed faiths. All the agreed upon statements posted on the internet are not going to change that, which is yet more evidence that we do not function by the agreements, only dialogue through them.)
Click to expand...
You don’t need to keep referencing his personal choice to become Catholic to make your points, no one else seems to have this need to reference your own conversion from Catholicism to accuse you or anyone else of apostacy to make his case, why do you? It is very personal and it is unkind too.
 
Were it not for the fact that our respective stances are informed by our ecclesiastical affiliations, I would never mention such a thing. Again, it is because Mardukm is the one who has brought up these statements as evidence for his viewpoint that I make any such reference, not to tear him down for his personal decisions which are, after all, none of my business. May he be happy and blessed in his new home. I mean that. But if it is the case that one who is actually Orthodox (such as Nine_Two or myself) has a very different view of these documents by virtue of having an Orthodox understanding of their place in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue (which is the topic of this thread), it would be wrong to let the interpretations of those who lack such an understanding stand without modification or challenge, as the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue cannot simply be an echo chamber in which the wishes of ALL for unity cloud our judgment of just where we stand, either relative to one another or as we see our own communions.

So if you know of some way that I can address the points of view of Catholics that exist as they are entirely because of their Catholic, not Orthodox, understandings of these issues without somehow addressing the reality of our differences in understanding things like what the documents mean or don’t mean in the dialogue (i.e., without mentioning Mardukm’s Catholicism or my Orthodoxy, when these are the very frames of reference by which we understand the documents we’re both looking at), then I would like to hear it. I mean, that makes absolutely no sense, but I would like to see what such a conversation would look like. There would probably be a lot of confusing anaphoric reference (“some previously-mentioned people who shall remain nameless who may or may not be Catholic…I can’t bring that up because it’s rude, even though we’re on a Catholic board and they have nothing to be ashamed of in simply stating their belief regarding the agreed statements, believe ____, but I disagree”).
 
dzheremi said:
Were it not for the fact that our respective stances are informed by our ecclesiastical affiliations, I would never mention such a thing. Again, it is because Mardukm is the one who has brought up these statements as evidence for his viewpoint that I make any such reference, not to tear him down for his personal decisions which are, after all, none of my business. May he be happy and blessed in his new home. I mean that. But if it is the case that one who is actually Orthodox (such as Nine_Two or myself) has a very different view of these documents by virtue of having an Orthodox understanding of their place in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue (which is the topic of this thread), it would be wrong to let the interpretations of those who lack such an understanding stand without modification or challenge, as the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue cannot simply be an echo chamber in which the wishes of ALL for unity cloud our judgment of just where we stand, either relative to one another or as we see our own communions.

So if you know of some way that I can address the points of view of Catholics that exist as they are entirely because of their Catholic, not Orthodox, understandings of these issues without somehow addressing the reality of our differences in understanding things like what the documents mean or don’t mean in the dialogue (i.e., without mentioning Mardukm’s Catholicism or my Orthodoxy, when these are the very frames of reference by which we understand the documents we’re both looking at), then I would like to hear it. I mean, that makes absolutely no sense, but I would like to see what such a conversation would look like. There would probably be a lot of confusing anaphoric reference (“some previously-mentioned people who shall remain nameless who may or may not be Catholic…I can’t bring that up because it’s rude, even though we’re on a Catholic board and they have nothing to be ashamed of in simply stating their belief regarding the agreed statements, believe ____, but I disagree”).
Click to expand...
Nine-two seems to manage it-Why can’t you? What’s the necessity of accusing Marduk of apostasy in your discussion? Merely ‘‘mentioning Marduk’s Catholicism’’ does not necessitate you saying what you said. I don’t think I am a slow person, I can follow your arguments very well and there is simply no need for that kind of adhominem in your points. You can disagree with his interpretations without those references.
 
Dear brother Nine_Two,
Nine_Two said:
I wasn’t talking about Christology,
Click to expand...
I know, I was just explaining the context for Dzheremi’s statements.🙂
I was talking about the approach to these agreements in general. As you yourself admit, not all are created equal, but some posters here seem to assume they are (like the poster in question who was insisting we all agreed on the filioque because we had an agreement).
Click to expand...
Agreed. A lot of Latin Catholics don’t understand that the great majority of the colloquies and Agreements are really just “informed suggestions.” Also something that needs to be considered is that these Agreements (even those that are not merely “informed suggestions”) don’t mean much until the highest authorities on BOTH sides agree. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church understands this latter necessity, though it may not be evident to a lot of the laity. I think those of the Absolutist Petrine bent especially think that just because the highest authorities on the Catholic side affirm it, then it must objectively be so for ALL parties involved. But just because something is established on the Catholic side does not mean it is established on the Orthodox side, and vice-versa. For example, at the Council of Florence, the Bulla for the Copts explicitly stated that it was not effective until the Coptic Synod accepted it.
The idea of “official agreed statements”, seems a bit off from the EO point of view
Click to expand...
I understand that. Nothing is really official in the EO until it gains acceptance by the laity (though Cavaradossi has given some sources indicating that this is not a unanimous viewpoint in EO’xy).
and from what Dzheremi says, from the OO point of view as well.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know where Dzheremi is coming from. His appeal to the “Fathers” sounds like the typical objection of those who don’t agree with PRESENT authority. THAT is not the Oriental Orthodox way. The Oriental Orthodox paradigm is High Petrine, not Low Petrine. The Christological Agreements were approved by the highest authorities in the Oriental Orthodox Churches (by “highest authorities,” I mean by the respective Patriarchs and Synods). For example, in the minutes of the meetings between the Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox on Christology, after the Coptic Synod accepted the Agreed Statements in 1990, to the extent that it decided to accept the Baptisms of the EO, the Coptic Synod states that one of the next steps in the program is to educate the laity on these decisions. There is no indication of a Low Petrine mentality. Dzheremi did not grow up in the Coptic Orthodox Church but is a very recent convert and his statements may either indicate he is influenced by the more rigorist elements in the Coptic Orthodox Church (something present in all our Churches), or is simply displaying the typical zeal of a new convert. I think that’s understandable, and that should be considered in assessing his comments.

Dzheremi is also under the false impression that I claimed that the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches have the same Faith. I did nothing of the sort in the other thread, and explicitly asserted that there are other theological matters that prevent full communion between the two families. It’s just that on the PARTICULAR matter of Christology, there IS full Agreement, and the highest authorities have determined that the respective theological terminologies are not a bar to this understanding. Of course, he has insisted, contrary to these decisions, that “it really IS about the form” (though he seems to have softened his position somewhat in his latest post in that thread 👍).
We have those same Christological agreements with them. In practice they don’t mean a whole lot since our faiths are still severed. They are an excellent point at which discussion can occur, but they aren’t a solution in and of themselves, and there is no real difference between one accepted by the Patriarchs, vs. one accepted by the bishops.
Click to expand...
Yes. Not all Eastern Orthodox Churches have accepted the Christological Agreements with the OO, but some have. But don’t you agree that this is a very important and fruitful step on the road to unity?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
dzheremi said:
Were it not for the fact that our respective stances are informed by our ecclesiastical affiliations, I would never mention such a thing. Again, it is because Mardukm is the one who has brought up these statements as evidence for his viewpoint that I make any such reference
Click to expand...
What statements are you talking about? The only thing I remember saying is that in my own heart, mind and soul, I resolved these differences for me to be able to enter the Catholic communion.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Bballer,
Bballer32 said:
Yes,will do… I just wanted to hear these last two responses and i will stop…

Sorry for the inconvenience :o
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the direction of the discussion is going quite nicely. Where does the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue stand? I think a discussion on the general principles of primacy/supremacy is within the bounds of the discussion (IMO).

I was just afraid that the thread would go off on tangents about those particular patristic sources you mentioned.:o

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top