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

[Ghosty]

They don’t lose their ordination, that is true. But they lose the application of it. But a person baptized is not guaranteed salvation if they hold onto sin. If I cut off your hand, that is still your hand. But you cannot use it, and your hand is useless. If I reattach your hand (say I am a surgeon) then with proper healing you can use your hand again.

The priest doesn’t stop being a priest, he just stops functioning as a priest because the priesthood belongs to the Church, not the person. If the person leaves the Church then they lose the functionality of a priest.

See my post above: a non-Orthodox Bishop does have the “application” of his ordination according to the common practice of the Orthodox Churches which do not “re-ordain” priests ordained by Catholic (or lapsed Orthodox) Bishops.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

See my post above: a non-Orthodox Bishop does have the “application” of his ordination according to the common practice of the Orthodox Churches which do not “re-ordain” priests ordained by Catholic (or lapsed Orthodox) Bishops.

Peace and God bless!

Let me put it this way, if two Catholics get married outside the Church, it is an invalid marriage. If two non-Catholics get married obviously outside the Church and then enter the Church, the marriage is validated. But they are not remarried.

Same banana.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If this were absolutely true then the Orthodox Churches would not recognize the ordinations performed by non-Orthodox Churches, but priests ordained by Catholic Bishops are not ordained if they become Orthodox. Bishops ordain by the power of the Church, yet non-Orthodox ordinations are indeed recognized.

At most we can say that there is no firm, set theology on the matter in Orthodoxy, and therefore we can’t say that the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are incompatible in this regard.

Peace and God bless!

Those who receive Catholic priests by vesting (like the Russians), consider Catholic sacraments to be ‘valid’ because they apply economy to consider such sacraments as being ‘not foreign to the Church’. I think this fits better with the concept of being licit (in so far as it is permitted by the Church through economy), rather than valid (meaning that short of a change of the form or intent of the sacrament, nothing can ever undo the validity of those ordinations).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As Patriarch Bartholomew said, we have grown to be ontologically different.

In terms of ecclesiology, theology or both, in the context of his speech?

His specific quote was that "the manner in which we exist has become ontologically different’’.

The full paragraph:

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

The full speech can be found via this link: Phos Hilarion (Georgetown University, 21 Oct 1997)

There are some that say this was as much a comment on the communion of Orthodox Churches as it might have been toward the Catholic Church (although it took cooler heads and a bit of time to acknowledge that possibility, among others).

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

My understanding is that Orders are subject to the Church, under the power of binding and loosing. A man who the Church says has no ability to function as a priest has no ability to function as a priest. If he performs a liturgy and the Church has declared that he has no ability to celebrate the Sacrament, then his celebration of the Eucharist remains without grace. There is in some sense, no category of valid and invalid, only of licit and illicit.

It seems there is not a lot of PRACTICAL difference between the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs on this matter.

Theologically speaking, however, does the Church have the power through the keys to take away what God has given? I mean, the prerogative of the keys states, “what is bound/loosed ON EARTH will be bound/loosed in heaven.” It does not say that what is bound/loosed IN HEAVEN can be bound/loosed on earth." There are some things, as far as the Sacraments are concerned, which are from God directly, and which the Catholic Church regards as not subject to change by the Church (e.g., the power of consecration, the Grace of Baptism and the sacredness of the marriage bond); the power of the keys given to the Church cannot take these away, but allows the Church only to REGULATE them (in terms of penalties given for their violation, the appropriateness and circumstances of their use, etc.).

I don’t think this is such a strange concept for the Orthodox - the idea that there are things given by God that the Church cannot take away. For example, the Orthodox recognize that the Church has absolutely no authority to loose the moral laws given by God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

In terms of ecclesiology, theology or both, in the context of his speech?

His specific quote was that "the manner in which we exist has become ontologically different’’.

The full paragraph:

The full speech can be found via this link: Phos Hilarion (Georgetown University, 21 Oct 1997)

There are some that say this was as much a comment on the communion of Orthodox Churches as it might have been toward the Catholic Church (although it took cooler heads and a bit of time to acknowledge that possibility, among others).

Sorry, I was paraphrasing

Ontological change is a huge thing. It means the very nature of our faith are very different. The problem really is we try to look at thing on the surface but there is more to the matter of faith than that. This exercise we are undergoing in comparing beliefs in certain aspects you can see that if one only wants to look at it from a certain perspective then the difference may be so little. But the truth is both sides never look at the same thing the exact same way. That is what it means to be ontologically different. The very nature of our faith is different that even the same exact thing can mean completely different to one another.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Yes, they existed in the First Millennium side-by-side. But things changed. So much more for the West given the development of doctrine and dogma, from St. Aquinas to the Council of Trent to the Marian Dogmas and Papal Dogma. We were side by side in the First Millennium because we had a lot of commonality then, but not anymore. That was 1000 years ago. As Patriarch Bartholomew said, we have grown to be ontologically different.

Oh I recognize that there are differences due to developments from BOTH sides. But I don’t think these matters you have brought up fall under that bill.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Those who receive Catholic priests by vesting (like the Russians), consider Catholic sacraments to be ‘valid’ because they apply economy to consider such sacraments as being ‘not foreign to the Church’. I think this fits better with the concept of being licit (in so far as it is permitted by the Church through economy), rather than valid (meaning that short of a change of the form or intent of the sacrament, nothing can ever undo the validity of those ordinations).

According to this OCA website, that Catholics have grace is held by some in the Orthodox Church: oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

The opinion is obviously the writer’s, but his statement indicates that such a viewpoint exists in the EOC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

According to this OCA website, that Catholics have grace is held by some in the Orthodox Church: oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

The opinion is obviously the writer’s, but his statement indicates that such a viewpoint exists in the EOC.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, like I said, those who hold that view point typically have the understanding that the Church in economy can allow those who have cut themselves off to be considered ‘not foreign to the Church’, forestalling the use of its canonical prerogative to cut them off entirely. It’s worth noting, by the way, that this is not the Nicodemean theory of empty forms that I’m talking about here.

 

[mardukm]

Sorry, I was paraphrasing

Ontological change is a huge thing. It means the very nature of our faith are very different. The problem really is we try to look at thing on the surface but there is more to the matter of faith than that. This exercise we are undergoing in comparing beliefs in certain aspects you can see that if one only wants to look at it from a certain perspective then the difference may be so little. But the truth is both sides never look at the same thing the exact same way. That is what it means to be ontologically different. The very nature of our faith is different that even the same exact thing can mean completely different to one another.

“The manner in which we exist” seems to be more of a practical/pastoral consideration rather than a theological one.

The explanation is given by HH in his speech, and it has nothing to do with being ontologically divergent in the Faith. What he was talking about was the distinction between approaching the reality of God merely intellectually (as he possibly perceives Western Christianity to be) and approaching God experientially (which he affirms is the method of Eastern Orthodoxy). When he says “MANNER in which we exist,” he is only referring to THE MANNER IN WHICH WE APPROACH GOD. He states immediately and explicitly after that phrase that he is referring to the “model of life.” His lecture was a pastoral one, not a polemic. To repeat, I don’t find he is saying anything about how divergent our Faiths are, but merely how different he perceives the West to be from the East in their approaches to God.

I seriously don’t know how one can take his statement to be referring to how differently we are doctrinally, unless one simply wrenches that statement out of its context. I imagine most people who are fond of throwing HH’s phrase around have never actually read his entire speech.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The explanation is given by HH in his speech, and it has nothing to do with being ontologically divergent in the Faith. What he was talking about was the distinction between approaching the reality of God merely intellectually (as he possibly perceives Western Christianity to be) and approaching God experientially (which he affirms is the method of Eastern Orthodoxy). When he says “MANNER in which we exist,” he is only referring to THE MANNER IN WHICH WE APPROACH GOD. He states immediately and explicitly after that phrase that he is referring to the “model of life.” His lecture was a pastoral one, not a polemic.

FWIW, I concur wholeheartedly with this assessment, and took that meaning from the speech even in the days after it was first delivered.

That said, I would have found both humor and some small amount of satisfaction in it if HH, having been awarded an honorary degree at the cradle of orthodox Christianity that is Georgetown University, would have felt it appropriate to look around and say “where am I?”, and commented as such in his address.

 

[mardukm]

FWIW, I concur wholeheartedly with this assessment, and took that meaning from the speech even in the days after it was first delivered.

That said, I would have found both humor and some small amount of satisfaction in it if HH, having been awarded an honorary degree at the cradle of orthodox Christianity that is Georgetown University, would have felt it appropriate to look around and say “where am I?”, and commented as such in his address.

Haha! Yes. I found his pastoral address VERY appropriate to an intellectual learning institution such as a college, especially one as prestigious as Georgetown.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Julia_Mae]

You do know that Pastor Aeternus clearly states that anyone who says that the Pope is merely First Among Equals is anathemized, right?

Maybe you should hunt down all these RCIA facilitators and get them tossed out. Now, seriously, how would some Protestant or Buddhist or anyone else in RCIA know anything about that?

 

[lude0r]

I am coming in this late and have not read all the threads but my opinion is that a preist can’t be 100% devoted to god and 100% devoted to wife/family…Someone will lose hopefully not god.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Constantine,

You do know that Pastor Aeternus clearly states that anyone who says that the Pope is merely First Among Equals is anathemized, right?

Actually, it does not say that at all. Can you please quote where it says that?

As you might know, Catholic doctrine asserts that Holy Orders consists of two powers - the power of jurisdiction and the power of orders (i.e. sanctifying). The primacy of the Pope rests in the power of jurisdiction, but the power of orders is greater than the power of jurisdiction. In Catholic doctrine, as far as the power of orders is concerned, EVERY BISHOP IS EQUAL. There is a very real sense in which all the bishops are equal to the Pope, so it would be rather disingenuous for the Catholic Church to actually anathemize the phrase at issue.

It should also be noted that (at least according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on “Hierarchy”), Christ did not establish an hierarchy for the teaching ministry. All bishops are equal as far as the teaching ministry is concerned. The primacy of the Pope in teaching is not because we believe that the Pope is a greater teacher than any other bishop (all bishops including the Pope have, after all, the same founts of Scripture and Tradition), but because of the power of jurisdiction, which Christ established as necessary for the good order of the Church. So in this sense as well, the phrase “first among equals” is valid.
(“It is possible, of course, to distinguish in the Church a threefold power: the potestas magisterii, or the right to teach in matters of faith and morals; the potestas ministerii, or the right to administer the sacraments, and the potestas regiminis, or the power of jurisdiction. Christ, however, did not establish a special hierarchy for the “potestas magisterii”, nor does the teaching power pertain to the power of order, as some have maintained, but rather to the power of jurisdiction.”)

I should affirm that, because of the hierarchy of the power of jurisdiction established by Christ Himself for the good order of the Church, the phrase “first among equals” is invalid in reference to the power of jurisdiction. The Pope holds a true primacy of jurisdiction, not a merely honorific primacy, for the good order of the Church as established by Christ Himself, because God is a God of order, not disorder, according to Scripture.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jwinch2]

Yes, they existed in the First Millennium side-by-side. But things changed.

I noticed you did not list sacramental theology in your list of things which changed since the schism. Yet, this is also one of the things you claim cannot exist side by side.

 

[Celticnovice]

“The manner in which we exist” seems to be more of a practical/pastoral consideration rather than a theological one.

The explanation is given by HH in his speech, and it has nothing to do with being ontologically divergent in the Faith. What he was talking about was the distinction between approaching the reality of God merely intellectually (as he possibly perceives Western Christianity to be) and approaching God experientially (which he affirms is the method of Eastern Orthodoxy). When he says “MANNER in which we exist,” he is only referring to THE MANNER IN WHICH WE APPROACH GOD. He states immediately and explicitly after that phrase that he is referring to the “model of life.” His lecture was a pastoral one, not a polemic. To repeat, I don’t find he is saying anything about how divergent our Faiths are, but merely how different he perceives the West to be from the East in their approaches to God.

I seriously don’t know how one can take his statement to be referring to how differently we are doctrinally, unless one simply wrenches that statement out of its context. I imagine most people who are fond of throwing HH’s phrase around have never actually read his entire speech.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have struggled to understand what HH meant by those words, combined with the way his speech is used on these fora…For example, I have a hard time seeing the ontological difference between a practicing Polish Roman Catholic and a practicing Serbian Orthodox. I do see some differences in their approach but I also see similarities and it makes me question the premise that they hold a different faith

 

[Vico]

I have struggled to understand what HH meant by those words, combined with the way his speech is used on these fora…For example, I have a hard time seeing the ontological difference between a practicing Polish Roman Catholic and a practicing Serbian Orthodox. I do see some differences in their approach but I also see similarities and it makes me question the premise that they hold a different faith

Aristotle describes four ontological dimensions of categories, verity, self-existence, and potentiality. Plato, his teacher having a different opinion, distinguished between reality (unchanging) and illusion (partaking). The western and Assyrian favor Aristotle, and the rest favor a neo-Platonic orientation. So we have the cataphatic and apophatic schools of theology.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Oh I recognize that there are differences due to developments from BOTH sides. But I don’t think these matters you have brought up fall under that bill.

Blessings,
Marduk

Then in this point we disagree. Every time I have to learn about something from the Orthodox, it takes me a while to get out of my “Latin mindset” to fully understand what they are teaching. It is completely different and incompatible, as far as I can see. Of course I am not an expert on the matter, but if they are that easily reconcilable why are we in schism for 1000 years?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother Constantine,

Actually, it does not say that at all. Can you please quote where it says that?

I hope this is not proof texting where we say “I don’t find that exact word in the dogma, therefore the dogma does not say it.” Here is what the dogma says:

or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.

So if he has power over ALL the pastors, how is that first among equals?