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

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bballer,

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.

Actually, primacy and supremacy refer to the same thing.

There are several facets to this issue, and a lot has to do with the meanings of the terminology.

To Orientals, supremacy is the same thing as primacy, but according to a High Petrine model. To Latins, it’s the same, but it seems the most popular conception is the Absolutist Petrine model. To Easterns, it generally seems primacy does not equate to supremacy, and primacy is conceived of according to the Low or High Petrine model, while supremacy is always conceived of according to the Absolutist Petrine model.

I think, for the sake of discussion, we should just stick to the term “primacy.” If you use the term “supremacy” in discussions with our Eastern brethren, you are not going to get anywhere for it will always connote domination in their eyes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

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.

That’s a good point, from the Eastern perspective.

I think a lot of the conflict revolves around the meaning of the term “jurisdiction.” We can’t deny that ruling is one of the prerogatives of jurisdiction. That is the way the early Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils used the term. The question is how we conceive of “ruling.” Should it be exercised in service to the Church (as our Lord intended), or should it be exercised to lord it over others (not as our Lord intended).

But we should be conscious and careful of what we mean by “service to the Church” and “lording it over others.” Supposing we have a set of canons, and a group is found to be violating those canons. The local hierarch imposes penalties for the violation. Is the hierarch “lording it over” this group, or is it a service to the Church that he is correcting this group? One side will see it differently from the other.

There is a fine line in a lot of circumstances, and both sides should recognize that. Also, for the sake of civil discussion and charity, Catholics should stop automatically conceiving of EO as having a democratic paradigm akin to the Protestants (while certain EO should stop presenting their Church like that); and Orthodox should stop automatically conceiving of Catholics as having an autocratic paradigm (while certain Catholics should stop presenting our Church like that).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

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.

This is somewhat of an aside, but what the hey …

One thing that I find very interesting is that, (as I was told by a bishop who has been personally involved in the discussions) a similar declaration was in the works between the COC and the RCC, but was scuttled at the last minute on the COC side. Apparently, it was due to the objections of a rather vocal minority (led by one particular – and highly placed – bishop, whose name escapes me at the moment) who seem to be closely tied to MP, so I suppose that it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

 

[mardukm]

This is somewhat of an aside, but what the hey …

One thing that I find very interesting is that, (as I was told by a bishop who has been personally involved in the discussions

 

[malphono]

Actually, primacy and supremacy refer to the same thing.

There are several facets to this issue, and a lot has to do with the meanings of the terminology.

To Orientals, supremacy is the same thing as primacy, but according to a High Petrine model. To Latins, it’s the same, but it seems the most popular conception is the Absolutist Petrine model. To Easterns, it generally seems primacy does not equate to supremacy, and primacy is conceived of according to the Low or High Petrine model, while supremacy is always conceived of according to the Absolutist Petrine model.

I think, for the sake of discussion, we should just stick to the term “primacy.” If you use the term “supremacy” in discussions with our Eastern brethren, you are not going to get anywhere for it will always connote domination in their eyes.

Of course (and FWLIW) I concur, but the problem on the Latin side is that my bugbear (Pastor Aeturnus, in case you were wondering) is far too vague (not to mention that it’s very existence (and that of its “dogmatic declaration”) was totally unnecessary in the first place, but I digress). Despite the voluminous exegesis by Bishop Gasser which you have cited so often, the document itself very clearly allows for the Absolutist view. Nothing short of a full and officially promulgated clarification is ever going to change that. Without that clarification, the molehill that became a mountain will remain a mountain. And, as I see it, an insurmountable one.

OK … so much another of my :twocents: comments probably worth less than half that.

 

[malphono]

I wonder when this was done.

I’m not sure, but I think it may have been in the early-to-mid-2000’s or thereabouts, maybe a little before. If I have the opportunity, I’ll see if I can pin it down a little more.

I think I know who you are talking about. But I don’t want to be the purveyor of gossip, a very serious sin according to my Coptic Tradition.

Could well be the same person. The one I’m thinking of seems to have quite a rep in that regard (something like that of one infamous bishop in the SSPX). IIRC, he was, at one point in the rather recent past, and after one of his public outbursts, told (by none other than the late Baba Shenoute himself) to keep his thoughts on certain matters to himself.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Of course (and FWLIW) I concur, but the problem on the Latin side is that my bugbear (Pastor Aeturnus, in case you were wondering) is far too vague (not to mention that it’s very existence (and that of its “dogmatic declaration”) was totally unnecessary in the first place, but I digress). Despite the voluminous exegesis by Bishop Gasser which you have cited so often, the document itself very clearly allows for the Absolutist view. Nothing short of a full and officially promulgated clarification is ever going to change that. Without that clarification, the molehill that became a mountain will remain a mountain. And, as I see it, an insurmountable one.

As I have expressed in the past, I wish there was a formal, dogmatic condemnation of neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) by Vatican 1 (and Vatican 2 [especially], for that matter).

I think we both agree that:
(1) Neo-ultramontanists (Absolutist Petrine advocates) have used V1 as a platform for their exaggerated opinions about the papacy;
(2) There is a lot of evidence to demonstrate that Vatican 1 had High Petrine, not Absolutist Perine, intentions for its decrees on the papacy.
(3) This evidence is not explicit.

I think the main difference between our pov’s rests in consideration of the third point. This lack of explicitness actually inspires the Absolutist Petrine advocates. From my perspective, the lack of explicitness is subjective - i.e., people are simply not aware, are not looking, or intentionally neglect those portions of V1. The difference between us is that I blame (for the most part) the Absolutist Petrine advocates themselves for their own ignorance of what V1 actually taught, whereas (perhaps) you blame V1 itself for this lack of explicitness. Would that be a correct assessment?

OK … so much another of my :twocents: comments probably worth less than half that.

Nah! It’s worth it. I think our pov’s as Orientals on this crucial issue help answer the OP’s question, since they do reflect the state of affairs right now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

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 ).

But the Copts are just one part of the OO Communion. Certainly their acceptance has no bearing on the Communion as a whole?

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?

Absolutely I agree with that. But it is nothing more than that. A step. Important - unity cannot happen without it - but still just a step, one of many. Its importance should not be overstated.

 

[malphono]

As I have expressed in the past, I wish there was a formal, dogmatic condemnation of neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) by Vatican 1 (and Vatican 2 [especially], for that matter).

I think we both agree that:
(1) Neo-ultramontanists (Absolutist Petrine advocates) have used V1 as a platform for their exaggerated opinions about the papacy;
(2) There is a lot of evidence to demonstrate that Vatican 1 had High Petrine, not Absolutist Perine, intentions for its decrees on the papacy.
(3) This evidence is not explicit.

I think the main difference between our pov’s rests in consideration of the third point. This lack of explicitness actually inspires the Absolutist Petrine advocates. From my perspective, the lack of explicitness is subjective - i.e., people are simply not aware, are not looking, or intentionally neglect those portions of V1. The difference between us is that I blame (for the most part) the Absolutist Petrine advocates for their own ignorance of what V1 actually taught, whereas (perhaps) you blame V1 itself for this lack of explicitness. Would that be a correct assessment?

Well yes, it really boils down to the 3rd point. And your assessment is close.

Where I place the “blame” is a little complicated. Yes, it has to do with Vatican I, but less on the Council itself than than on (a) the one who summoned it and (b) the secular political motivations behind it. As I mentioned in another thread fairly recently, (about the IC and Assumption) the “dogmatic declaration” emanating from Vatican I was absolutely unnecessary from either a theological or ecclesiological standpoint.

The fact is, however, that it was made, and couched in terms that are s vague (and I have to laugh at the rad-trads who insist that it was only Vatican II that was vague) that it allows the ultramontanists (neo or otherwise) to make their own interpretation. And among them we can count at least one Bishop of Rome (more likely 3), lots and lots of bishops, lower clergy, theologians, lawyers, etc, as well as what probably is the majority of RC laity. I stand firmly behind the idea that nothing short of a formal and official clarification will ever put the matter to rest.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

But the Copts are just one part of the OO Communion. Certainly their acceptance has no bearing on the Communion as a whole?

Yes, just as the position of the COC on the Sacraments of the Catholic Church has no bearing on the position of the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches, who do in fact accept the Sacraments and orders of the Catholic Church as “valid” (in Latinspeak). I was just using the COC as as an example of the High Petrine position of the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Absolutely I agree with that. But it is nothing more than that. A step. Important - unity cannot happen without it - but still just a step, one of many. Its importance should not be overstated.

Nor understated (you probably expected that rejoinder ). The Christological controversy was in fact the MAJOR stumbling block between the Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonians. We have overcome that stumbling block, praise God! Of course, that shouldn’t cloud us to the objective fact that a lot of work still needs to be done for full communion to be established.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

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.

What on earth does this mean? Following the Fathers is not the Oriental Orthodox way? Remember earlier when I brought up canon 15 in relation to the election of the new Pope? What’s that all about, then? It is only in your own mind that there is this dichotomy between following the present authorities and following the Fathers, because in Orthodoxy the former are already supposed to be following the latter. But to the extent that this does not always happen (because, again, we do not have an infallible Pope), it is right to appeal to the Fathers in reminding the present leadership of their duty to preserve the faith (that’s the whole point of bringing up canon 15 in the first place; this is an ACTUAL ARGUMENT that is going on right now in the Coptic Church, so you cannot say that it is not the way we do things). This is relevant to our wider discussion of the agreed statements because I raised it in the context of explaining how I, an Oriental Orthodox person, can say that IF they mean what you think they mean (again, they don’t, but IF they did), then our leadership is just wrong or deceived in signing them. Because, y’know, our leadership can be wrong. It has happened. We can reject what they say if it is inconsistent with our faith, and the whole church does not fall. For example, HE Metropolitan Bishoy learned that the hard way recently after stupidly telling Coptic girls and women to follow the example of Muslims in their dress and manners. Whoops.

The Oriental Orthodox paradigm is High Petrine, not Low Petrine.

I’ve posted about this before, but maybe not in this context, so it would be a good time to remind you that these are typological terms that YOU have invented to suit your own needs and are not used outside of discussions that you are involved in here or elsewhere (I remember when I searched for them once on Google it brought up a lot of threads from CAF and some from another board you posted on; haha). I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m happy for you that something you have invented has some limited currency among the people you interact with on the internet, but please don’t confuse that with reality. The Oriental Orthodox paradigm is neither High Petrine or Low Petrine or ANY Petrine, because this is not a dichotomy we recognize. But then, it’s not a dichotomy that anybody recognizes outside of conversations with you, which I guess neither our priests or our bishop have ever had, since I have not heard them use these categories in talking about the Papal office. It seems that we do not have some complicated taxonomy of types of Papacy (or understandings of Papacy, or whatever)…probably because we don’t need to.

(cont’d below)

 

[dzheremi]

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.

I’m not really sure what your point is here. The agreement on how to receive EO converts is of a fundamentally different character than the Christological agreement with Rome. EO may show up one day, looking to be received into OO’doxy (it is relatively rare, but it does happen), so there should be some guidelines for it, just like there are guidelines about how to receive non-Orthodox like me. What similar practical use have the Christological agreements? They do not establish communion as the reception of a convert does. They are not really for the purpose of changing behavior at a parish level, but of informing people on both sides of the table “this is where we stand on this issue that has divided us for so long; let us proceed from this common understanding”. That is a fundamentally different kind of statement than “EO converts are to be received by chrismation only, as their baptism is sufficient in the eyes of the synod” (or whatever the actual wording of the document is).

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 ).

I did not soften it. I apparently had not explained it well enough in the first place for you to understand what I had meant from the beginning by that statement, so it required further clarification.

As to the matter of Christology, if you agree with the statements that already exist in our traditions (as in the confession from the liturgy of St. Basil, that “His divinity parted not from His humanity, not for a single moment nor the twinkling of an eye”), then of course it is easy on some level to say “Yes, we agree”. This is what I see going on in the Armenian statement, for instance, which you have made a big deal of saying that it says “THIS common faith” (I can’t remember the post exactly, but you know your own posts and anyone can find it if they care to). But we do not agree with the Chalcedonian Christology, and you agree with that as well, right? (It could be that there is some wiggle room here, as I doubt any Chalcedonian would disagree and say that His natures parted at any point, but I am using this as an illustration to make a point.) So it is a bit of a weird situation: We agree with you in so far as you agree with us, but not in so far as you disagree with us by accepting the Tome of Leo and the Chalcedonian Christology based on it. So perhaps the problem is not so much that I am apparently “displaying the typical zeal of a new convert” (though I’ll allow that this probably plays a part in my argumentativeness regarding these issues), but that Rome is willing to embrace many things it not would have embraced in earlier eras in order to get agreed statements out of other churches. I don’t know why. It just seems like these agreements have an additional or deeper level of importance and meaning to you as a Catholic, so I’m assuming that this is bolstered by some attitude coming out of Rome that, again, the Orthodox generally don’t share even though we have the same kinds of agreements among each other (in the OO-EO talks, which was Nine_Two’s point when he said they don’t really add up to much).

 

[malphono]

What on earth does this mean? Following the Fathers is not the Oriental Orthodox way? Remember earlier when I brought up canon 15 in relation to the election of the new Pope? What’s that all about, then? It is only in your own mind that there is this dichotomy between following the present authorities and following the Fathers, because in Orthodoxy the former are already supposed to be following the latter. But to the extent that this does not always happen (because, again, we do not have an infallible Pope), it is right to appeal to the Fathers in reminding the present leadership of their duty to preserve the faith (that’s the whole point of bringing up canon 15 in the first place; this is an ACTUAL ARGUMENT that is going on right now in the Coptic Church, so you cannot say that it is not the way we do things). This is relevant to our wider discussion of the agreed statements because I raised it in the context of explaining how I, an Oriental Orthodox person, can say that IF they mean what you think they mean (again, they don’t, but IF they did), then our leadership is just wrong or deceived in signing them. Because, y’know, our leadership can be wrong. It has happened. We can reject what they say if it is inconsistent with our faith, and the whole church does not fall.

OK, but is there not a distinction to be made between the opinion of an individual (albeit a bishop) and the decision of a Holy Synod? I say that here because, from little I’ve been able to find about the current COC controversy in re canon 15 of Nicea and the pending election, the arguments against electing a sitting diocesan bishop to the See of St Mark (which are, to me at least, a little weak in the first place) seem to have been settled by decision of the Holy Synod (whether 1928 or 1957 I can’t tell).

For example, HE Metropolitan Bishoy learned that the hard way recently after stupidly telling Coptic girls and women to follow the example of Muslims in their dress and manners. Whoops.

Classic foot-in-mouth … more likely all the way to knee.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Well yes, it really boils down to the 3rd point. And your assessment is close.

Where I place the “blame” is a little complicated. Yes, it has to do with Vatican I, but less on the Council itself than than on (a) the one who summoned it

 

[dzheremi]

OK, but is there not a distinction to be made between the opinion of an individual (albeit a bishop) and the decision of a Holy Synod? I say that here because, from little I’ve been able to find about the current COC controversy in re canon 15 of Nicea and the pending election, the arguments against electing a sitting diocesan bishop to the See of St Mark (which are, to me at least, a little weak in the first place) seem to have been settled by decision of the Holy Synod (whether 1928 or 1957 I can’t tell).

Yes, and the opinion of those who are signing on to the various petitions or statements urging the Synod to uphold the canon (including the clergical assembly of our diocese) is that the Holy Synod of 1957 made a mistake in discarding it in the first place, as when they did so originally (maybe with 1928 as a precedent? I’d have to read up on that Synod…I’m still working my through the arguments presented) it was a break with holy tradition, which is wrong in and of itself. Were that not the case, I wouldn’t have brought it up. For more on this issue, you may refer to this much more comprehensive website, which lists the reasons for the current mess we’re in. It’s not pretty, but that’s why I’m using it as an example, to show that it is not as simple as to say “well, the Synod said so”. The Synod is accountable to the faith, as it is charged with preserving that faith from error, and when it errs (as the people are now afraid it may), we all suffer. So we have this big, drawn out argument because it is in some sense necessary in order to preserve the faith. The agreed statements with the Roman Catholic Church generally don’t generate such discord precisely because we do not see them as binding our faith to “official” pronouncements in the way that you apparently do. It is much more as Nine_Two put it: Necessary and good steps in continued dialogue, with the hope of reunion. Not substantiating reunion in and of themselves.

Classic foot-in-mouth … more likely all the way to knee.

Oh, tell me about it! But I ranted and raved about that already when it happened (probably not here because we have no Copts other than you). I only brought it up here to show that no leader who is wrong will escape the wrath of the people. They are to guide us as good shepherds, so should they throw us to the wolves…well…you saw what happened. It is not tolerated.

 

[Peter_J]

“Authoritative” to who? The HIGHEST authorities in the Orthodox Church, the Fathers, did not sign such agreements, and anyway, the entire point of my post is that you’re looking at these statements as a Catholic who would like very much to pretend as though you haven’t left Orthodoxy by embracing Catholicism. But that is not the case, and your way of reading these statements is not our way. If we looked at authority as you do, we would take the statements IN AND OF THEMSELVES as proof of a common faith, as they were signed by “authorities” (as though the authority is in the man by virtue of the office, not in the faith he holds!). But that is not how it works. Every new thing that is put forth must be examined, and those things which are not acceptable must be rejected. This is why, for instance, there is so much strife going on today in Coptic circles seeking to impress upon the synod the necessity of abiding by canon 15 (which disallows the election of a bishop as patriarch) in the selection of the next Pope, which has sadly been neglected at some points in the past. By the same token, when the people at a diocesan and parish level do not accept the “agreed statements” as being evidence of what you say they are, what recourse do you have in counting on “authorities” to impose some new vision of how our churches are? We/I don’t even think that this is what the statements are doing in the first place (and I have more faith in our bishops than to presume that they see things as you do; I have met HG Bishop Youssef, for instance, and he seems like a very committed Orthodox Christian), but to hypothetically entertain your wrong-headed notion, so what if they were? Should the EO likewise be bound by the signatories of their churches at the Council of Florence to accept everything that came from the Latins at that council and subsequent to it? No, of course not. And they weren’t. Similarly, IF the agreed upon statements really mean that we have the SAME FAITH as the Latins (they don’t, but if they did), then our bishops were quite simply wrong or deceived in signing on to them, and we needn’t pay them any mind beyond being an example of what NOT TO DO (cf., violation of canon 15, as mentioned above).

This is the church as it exists away from the infallibility of the bishop claimed by the Latin church. THIS is Orthodoxy. We are not the same, and it is not of any man’s power to change the faith to say that we are. If you interpret the agreed statements to say anything like that, then you are wrong, you are projecting your Latin notions of authority on us, and there is no point in listening to you.

That’s the way I see the matter.

Dzheremi’s attacks on Mardukm (sorry, they seem more like attacks than arguments or disagreements) are vicious. Most of what he says are either ad hominems or arbitrary proclamations that people are simply meant to accept at face value. Such a conversation is pointless, if it can be called that- because what one arbitrarily asserts, another can simply arbitrarily deny. In any case, I don’t see why Mardukm’s personal choice of faith has to enter a discussion on whether the Churches agreed to sharing a common faith or not, and it does not warrant the manner of conversation that Dzheremi has chosen to employ.

Although I, also, take issue with Dzheremi on some things (such as his occasional use of CAPS in the post in question) I also have to take issue with your labeling his disagreements with Mardukm as “[vicious] attacks on Mardukm”.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, thank you for pointing that out that I do have a caps problem occasionally. I need to work on that, to become dispassionate and irenic, as much as is possible in this format (as in life in general). Lord have mercy. Please forgive me, my brothers and sisters.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, thank you for pointing that out that I do have a caps problem occasionally.

But admitting it is the first step.

Have you tried the patch?

 

[malphono]

Yes, and the opinion of those who are signing on to the various petitions or statements urging the Synod to uphold the canon (including the clergical assembly of our diocese) is that the Holy Synod of 1957 made a mistake in discarding it in the first place, as when they did so originally (maybe with 1928 as a precedent? I’d have to read up on that Synod…I’m still working my through the arguments presented) it was a break with holy tradition, which is wrong in and of itself. Were that not the case, I wouldn’t have brought it up. For more on this issue, you may refer to this much more comprehensive website, which lists the reasons for the current mess we’re in. It’s not pretty, but that’s why I’m using it as an example, to show that it is not as simple as to say “well, the Synod said so”. The Synod is accountable to the faith, as it is charged with preserving that faith from error, and when it errs (as the people are now afraid it may), we all suffer. So we have this big, drawn out argument because it is in some sense necessary in order to preserve the faith.

I actually did look at the nicea.ca website, and hence my comment that the arguments against the precedent set by the Holy Synod seem to me to be rather weak. Personally, I see no violation of Canon 15 in electing a sitting diocesan bishop: the reference there seems to be unilateral voluntary translation, (perhaps “usurpation” in the case of bishops might be better) rather than a canonical election. Nor do I see a conflict with the rules of the Holy Synod (1957 or 1928 or both), as they don’t require same, but merely say that it’s not an impediment. But I suppose all of that is for another thread (and if its in the “non-catholic religions” forum, I won’t see it – I just don’t have the patience to wade through all trash there).

The agreed statements with the Roman Catholic Church generally don’t generate such discord precisely because we do not see them as binding our faith to “official” pronouncements in the way that you apparently do. It is much more as Nine_Two put it: Necessary and good steps in continued dialogue, with the hope of reunion. Not substantiating reunion in and of themselves.

I presume by “you” in the above, you didn’t mean me personally. Anyway, no, such statements (or “declarations” or whatever) don’t bind the faith but, taken together with the preceding statement (re Canon 15), it raises a hypothetical question: what does bind? I mean, if the two parties come to a mutual agreement, and that agreement is canonically accepted by both sides, does it not bind? Just asking.

Oh, tell me about it! But I ranted and raved about that already when it happened (probably not here because we have no Copts other than you). I only brought it up here to show that no leader who is wrong will escape the wrath of the people. They are to guide us as good shepherds, so should they throw us to the wolves…well…you saw what happened. It is not tolerated.

Oh yeah … big time. And of course I’m even not a Copt at all.

 

[dzheremi]

Malphono: Please check your PMs for a further (I had hoped to be preemptive, but I guess it didn’t work out that way) response to this post.

As for the arguments for or against canon 15 (or, rather, for or against in the argument we’re having in the Coptic Church over canon 15), I can only present what I have been presented with, both on a diocese and church-wide level. If you do not find them convincing, that is fine with me, as of course neither of us are about to step in and dictate to the Synod what is what. For the purposes of bringing up this issue in the first place, as outlined in my response (i.e., to show that we are not servile in merely accepting the synod as an unquestionable authority, but that synod actually has a responsibility to preserve the faith unchanged, whether or not anyone buys into the whole kerfuffle going on over canon 15 or not), I think it still works as an example of a general principle, in contrast to other models of authority whereby the “official” statement of this or that at an ecumenical level should bind us if in fact the people (be they bishop, priest, layperson, etc.) find some reason to object to them. Such is the case in the fight over canon 15 (hoping to avoid such a situation in the first place), such would be the case with regard to any statement or position that is potentially against the faith, God-willing. This is how we persevere without the chrism of Papal infallibility, you understand. We cannot simply say “so and so said it”, but rather “what do the Fathers and the ancient Canons say”. It could be (and I hope it is; I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to say) that we will find this whole episode surrounding the election of the new Patriarch to be quite strange and maybe even wholly unnecessary in a few years, depending on how things play out. We shall see.