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

[jwinch2]

Very true, and no one wants a restored communion based on anything other than common faith. Yet, cooperation on these and other important matters do tend to remind us quite vividly of the values we share in common, and do build bonds of trust necessary for progress on “the hard stuff”.

Even here in the U.S., the prospective realities of legislation (HHS mandate) and the implications for religious freedom were sufficient to build ready consensus among various groups of Christians.

Well stated.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Luke 18:22-30 (Douay-Rheims)

Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
He having heard these things, became sorrowful; for he was very rich.
And Jesus seeing him become sorrowful, said: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God. For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they that heard it, said: Who then can be saved? He said to them: The things that are impossible with men, are possible with God.
Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

I’m beginning to be one who hates having verses taken out of context and applied to something they weren’t mean to be applied to.

But on the other hand you do drive a good point. Perhaps only in heaven will we ever be united.

 

[Vico]

I’m beginning to be one who hates having verses taken out of context and applied to something they weren’t mean to be applied to.

But on the other hand you do drive a good point. Perhaps only in heaven will we ever be united.

They were given in context. The surrounding dialogue is there.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

When Greece is over run by Moslems the Orthodox will come back to the Catholic Church.

It may take Rome and Moscow being over run too.

 

[dzheremi]

You’re right, Jerry…Rome has no trouble with its own Muslim populations, after all…

 

[Nine_Two]

Of course, both side are open to the other side accepting their position.

That too.

I was meaning something more along the lines of going to talks and not expecting that the other side is just going to suddenly give up everything and reform themselves in that image, which is the impression I get from talking with laity (and is undoubtably the impression I give off most of the time).

 

[Nine_Two]

When Greece is over run by Moslems the Orthodox will come back to the Catholic Church.

It may take Rome and Moscow being over run too.

You mean like the time that actually happened and Orthodox overwhelmingly decided that life under the Muslims would be better than life under Catholics?

The Catholic Church is no more appealing now than it was in 1453, in fact it is probably less so.

 

[Vico]

…

Thus, the last significant statement of the Joint Commission was the Ravenna Document.

The “pause” if you will on this subject in particular is not at all surprising, yet I have not been able to find any information as to when the next plenary session may be held. Any clues?

From the communique of the Joint International Comission, Vienna, Austria, 20-27 September 2010:As was decided at the 10th plenary session in Ravenna, 2007, the Commission is studying the theme “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”, on the basis of a draft text prepared by the Joint Coordinating Committee, which met in Aghios Nikolaos/Crete, Greece, 2008.

During its meeting in Vienna, the Commission continued the detailed consideration of the text which began at last year’s plenary session at Paphos, Cyprus. At this stage, the Commission is discussing this text as a working document and it decided that the text must be further revised.

It was also decided to form a sub-commission to begin consideration of the theological and ecclesiological aspects of Primacy in its relation to Synodality. The sub-commission will submit its work to the Joint Coordinating Committee of the Commission which will meet next year [2011].
This meeting of the sub-commission began its work in Rome from November 22 through the 25th, 2011.
mospat.ru/en/2011/11/23/news53192/“In his address, Metropolitan Hilarion reminded the participants that a discussion of the problem of unia was a precondition of the return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the process of the dialogue. This position was espoused by the Orthodox participants in the meeting.”
I have not read of any meetings of the commission itself.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

I don’t see how that last paragraph you bolded is anything but a fancy way of nuancing the fact that ex cathedra statements do not require the consent of the Church to look as if they do require the consent of the Church. The argument in fact rather reminds me of enlightenment theories of the governed giving implicit consent to the government. The Pope, so the argument goes, already has the consent of the Church by virtue of his office as the temporal head of the Church. And so using these two assumptions, that the Church cannot fall into error, and that the body cannot be separated from the head, it therefore can be concluded that the head can never fall into error in while defining something in his capacity as head. But this does nothing to temper the statement that a pronouncement of such nature by the Roman Pontiff is irreformable not by the consent of the Church. In fact, it complements its meaning, showing that the existence of the body is merely a necessary condition for the head to have its power, but that the consent of the body is not necessary in any sort of instrumental fashion.

That would be incorrect. You are misinterpreting the statement from the Relatio.

First of all, you must understand that there is a nuanced difference between “consent” and “consensus.” A lot of people confuse the two terms and the respective contexts in which they are used. The term “consent” that is used in the context of the statement “not by the consent of the Church” is not identical to the term “consensus” that is used in the context of the official Relatio. “Consent” in the context of the dogma refers to something akin to “permission” or “approval.” This does not contradict the statement from the Relatio that the consensus of the present preaching of the Magisterium is a necessary Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope. I actually have to go right now, but I will return later to explain it in more detail.

But I must applaud you. Your understanding above is much better than the usual misinterpretation I hear from opponents of the papacy - that agreement will come because the rest of the Church is forced to kowtow to anything the Pope says. At least you recognize the necessary importance of the body for the head in the Catholic paradigm.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Now it is you who is slicing and dicing. Let’s bring out the entire text, shall we?

You’re not reading the whole thing.

While you are correct that the character of infallibility is on the Church, it is only the Roman Pontiff who can wield it.

That is such a false opinion about Catholic teaching, it really makes me wonder where you get your information about the Catholic Faith - Catholic or non-Catholic sources. You should read the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on “papal Infallibility.” It will give you a good primer on what the Catholic Church actually teaches. The article starts off necessarily with an explanation of the infallibility of the Church because that is the ONLY context in which we can understand “papal infallibility.” It will go on to say that there are three distinct organs of infallibility that exercises the infallibility of the Church (guess what - it is not the Pope alone). It goes on further to say that “papal infallibility” is not an active principle in an Ecumenical Council (so Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors are both grossly mistaken in their assumption that “papal infallibility” is the be-all-and-end-all of Catholic Truth).

So same banana. It is a unilateral power.

You are confusing the concept of the irreformability of a dogma, on the one hand, with the concept of the exercise of infallbility, on the other. According to the dogma, It is NOT the definitions of the Pope (and the concurrent exercise of such determinations) that are “not from the consent of the Church” but rather the nature of dogmas as “irreformable.” Maybe you need to read the dogma more carefully. The only thing that portion of the dogma is saying is that Truth does not come by consensus. The idea that Truth comes by consensus is a modernist heresy. The Church does not teach that, and never has. Even the ancient and much vaunted Apostolic Canon 34 does not teach that the Truth comes by consensus - only that UNITY will be ensured by consensus.

And to say that personal and unilateral are two different things is just polemics.

Why? Show me the error in my rhetoric. You’ll need a lot more than an unsubstantiated statement.

How do we know where one begins and one ends? If 10 bishops say the Pope is heretic and the Pope says he is not, who do we believe? If the Pope then declares said heretic belief to be ex cathedra, who are we to contradict?

Our faith as Catholics says that the Holy Spirit will never let the Pope teach heresy ex cathedra. Why? Because that function of the Pope is a function of the Church which is infallible. Ask yourself why YOU believe the Church is infallible. Is it because of God’s promise? If there comes a time when the Church’s infallibility must necessarily be exercised by the Pope, why would you think that God will withhold his infallible protection from the Church in that instant and allow the Church to be taught error by the Pope? I hope you can formulate a good response to that question.

Thank God that infallibility never existed at the time of Honorius.

Oh so you do not believe in the infallibility of the Church since you do not believe it existed at the time of Honorius?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JRKH]

So basically, what I have taken away from this thread so far is that my Church is ‘tradition bound’, yet demonstrably false based on Church tradition (post # 36), and that we ought to be targeted for conversion as if we were Jews (post #45). Wonderful.

I guess this really shows where the dialogue is today

I would disagree that the speculations, opinions, and comments of a bunch of lay people on a public forum really can reflect “where the dialogue is today”.

I can virtually guarantee that any substantive progress made by the leadership of the two churches will be met with the widest range of responses from those “in the pews” (and from some clergy) - - - from acceptance and joy to derision and gnashing of teeth.

I still pray for greater unity between the Churches…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If it makes you feel any better, my opinion of the Orthodox Church is one of great respect and love. I very much wish to see communion restored, and with God’s grace, I believe this can happen in a way that is respectful of both sides of the discussion. Its something I pray for with great regularity.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that in the coming years we are going to need each other in ways that are only beginning to manifest now with the direction the world is taking in terms of secularization.

Amen…

Peace
James

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Perhaps only in heaven will we ever be united.

Yet surely we will be held accountable to the extent we perpetuated division.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I was meaning something more along the lines of going to talks and not expecting that the other side is just going to suddenly give up everything and reform themselves in that image, which is the impression I get from talking with laity (and is undoubtably the impression I give off most of the time).

Precisely

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yet surely we will be held accountable to the extent we perpetuated division.

Love thy neighbor.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It was also decided to form a sub-commission to begin consideration of the theological and ecclesiological aspects of Primacy in its relation to Synodality. The sub-commission will submit its work to the Joint Coordinating Committee of the Commission which will meet next year [2011].

This meeting of the sub-commission began its work in Rome from November 22 through the 25th, 2011.
mospat.ru/en/2011/11/23/news53192/“In his address, Metropolitan Hilarion reminded the participants that a discussion of the problem of unia was a precondition of the return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the process of the dialogue. This position was espoused by the Orthodox participants in the meeting.”
I have not read of any meetings of the commission itself.

And the trail goes dead there, or so it seems.

This objection is interesting in light of the formal, joint rejection of uniatism as a model for reunion and recognition as an “error of the past” (Ravenna 2007). As we now know, this really relates to the situation in Ukraine, interesting in and of itself as the UGCC is the minority among the four Churches in the country (and those pesky Ruthenians, even more so). The battle for Kiev continues, so it seems.

It is unfortunate that this has seemingly stalled progress, yet it is now speculated that the Pope and Patriarch Kirill might meet on neutral ground in Finland to “break the ice” . source: Could Pope, Russian Patriarch meet in Finland? (CWN - 13 Aug 2012). For his part, His Beatitude Sviatoslav of the UGCC has repeatedly expressed willingness to enter serious discussions with all parties and has worked from the onset of his appointment in early 2011. His perspective is reflected in a recent CNS article (29 Aug 2012) entitled Ukrainian Catholic leader hopes to mend ties with Russian Orthodox.

Thanks for your post, as it brings us squarely back on point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You see this link?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnftu.net%2Fpope-possibly-will-meet-with-kirill-in-finland%2F&ei=-kdHUPStD4Tv0gHSwoHADw&usg=AFQjCNG-2Q9YQqMdoC8uiEdbWVXOC9rXRw&sig2=62qFpjxBsgdw7WK7a7WmZQ

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jerry-Jet,

When Greece is over run by Moslems the Orthodox will come back
to the Catholic Church.

It may take Rome and Moscow being over run too.

This statement reflects a very secular paradigm. Why would Orthodox come back to the Catholic Church just because of the danger of Muslims? The Oriental Orthodox certainly have not rushed into anything despite the constant danger of Muslim miltancy.

The Orthodox have always maintained adherence to Faith as the only determinant for unity.

I think your statement is rather a downer for it does not evince a proper respect for the motivations of all our Churches.

The Orthodox will not accept anything less than unity in the Faith as the precondition for unity. And neither will the Catholic Church. You might recall the time when a large group of Macedonian Orthodox appealed for unity with the Catholic Church, but HHJP2 of thrice-blessed memory opportunely turned them away because their motivation appeared to be something short of true unity of Faith (it was primarily due to an ecclesiastical dispute that the group wanted communion with the Catholic Church). I believe neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Churches will accept unity from each other merely because of the threat of Muslim militancy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnnykins]

So basically, what I have taken away from this thread so far is that my Church is ‘tradition bound’, yet demonstrably false based on Church tradition (post # 36), and that we ought to be targeted for conversion as if we were Jews (post #45). Wonderful.

Considering it is the Orthodox who reject the Baptism of Catholics, I find your angst a bit overplayed…The fundamental issue is that the Orthodox very forthrightly hold that Catholic sacraments (mysteries) are graceless.

As to being tradition bound, perhaps a short perusal of the many posts by the Orthodox on this forum will convince you that indeed the Orthodox wallow in tradition. In that the tradition of Councils being held valid by the Church had nothing to do with acceptance by the laity until Florence …that very adherence to tradition simply leads inexorably to the conclusion that those who reject Florence are outside the True Church…unless one wants to embrace the novelty of ex post laity approval. As to being targeted for conversion as if you were Jews, where did that come from?

Catholics hold that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, and are thus Christians. Just because the Orthodox deny Catholics are Christians in no way works in reverse.

So much for red herrings and smugness - or does that only apply to non-Orthodox. Somehow comments here from so many of our Orthodox brethren remind me of Moslems complaining about the Crusades just attacking them while forgetting that Moslems somehow wound up in central France and outside the gates of Vienna… Oh well, just made me think of it.

On topic…the chances of reunion any time soon are approaching nil…and will happen at all only when the Holy Spirit causes it.

 

[Peter_J]

No it is not. Pastor Aeternus ends (or the penultimate sentence) with the following text:

                          Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, **and not by the consent of the church**

Note, however, that it doesn’t say “We declare and define that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”