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

[Peter_J]

Always time to learn something new.

Although now i have to wonder if either the RC or EO have reached out to what i’d call from my modernist mindset the “truly obscure” groups like the remanents of the Church of the East.

If you mean e.g. the (arguably Nestorian) Assyrian Church of the East, I believe that the RCC is the one that has the been relationship with them.

 

[Nine_Two]

The same was suggested to me by an EO friend of mine - however because I am not a “member of the club” so to speak, I was unable to determine the veracity of the statement in question.

ie: Do other EOs feel the same way? Do the Catholics?

I vaguely recall his argument, but the small part i do remember is that if the focus shifted from discussions of theological points toward discussions about how one lived (and here i get confused if he means in terms of religious practice), much more common ground could be found between the EO and OO.

ie: Its about the Orthopraxy rather than the Orthodoxy - or at least that’s what i got out of it.

In my experience EO in general believe themselves much closer to the OO than to RC.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to reunite with the Catholic Church would the Russian government(Putin) be OK with it or not?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to reunite with the Catholic Church would the Russian government(Putin) be OK with it or not?

Interesting question, but why should the opinion of a political leader matter?

 

[Cyrillic]

If the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to reunite with the Catholic Church would the Russian government(Putin) be OK with it or not?

The RCC wouldn’t agree with it, since only luring the ROC into communion would be uniatism, a tactic the RCC at least verbally rejects since a few years.

 

[Peter_J]

If the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to reunite with the Catholic Church would the Russian government(Putin) be OK with it or not?

I have visited the future and yes it will (cf. Prof Frink).

 

[malphono]

Interesting question, but why should the opinion of a political leader matter?

Well … how about Henry VIII?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother PeterJ,

First principles. The High Petrine view espouses the following:

1. The head bishop has true power and authority by virtue of his office in his entire sphere of jurisdiction as head, a power and authority to be used in service to the Church, not to Lord it over others. He is not merely an administrative head, nor a tie-breaker in Council.
2. Though the head bishop has ordinary jurisdiction in the entire Church, including every diocese, where he is head, the head bishop only has proper jurisdiction in matters pertaining to his local diocese as bishop, and in matters pertaining to the entire Church where he is head, but not in matters pertaining to other local dioceses. (In layman’s terms, that means that a head bishop’s authority for the entire Church is always there, but it cannot be used regularly, but only when necessary.)
3. In matters pertaining to the entire Church (or entire particular Church) where he is head, the head bishop must have the consent (agreement, not permission) of the rest of the Church (in accordance with Apostolic Canon 34).
4. The head bishop is not above the Council/Synod, but is an intergral and indispensable member as its head, a headship that sets him apart from the other bishops (in accodance with Apostolic Canon 34).
5. Each bishop has authority in and of himself by virtue of his office, and is not merely a delegate or vicar of the head bishop.

Of course, there are differences between the Catholic and OO High Petrine perspectives, primarily due to the fact that Catholics believe the Church universal also has a head bishop (i.e., not just on the metropolitan or patriarchal levels).

It’s impossible to find an official document or standard manual on what Orientals believe about their Patriarchs, because such considerations are not really a predominant factor in Orthodox ecclesiology. The evidence for a High Petrine understanding of the Church is indirect and implied from its praxis. For example:

1. OO’s often refer to their Patriarchs as “supreme” or as “head of the Church” (terminology that EO often avoid).
2. In legislative matters, OO’s refer to their Patriarchs as “supreme judge.”
3. Patriarchal appointment of bishops is common practice.
4. At least in the Syriac family of Churches, the justification for the existence of the head bishop is theological, not merely canonical, based on the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles given to him by Christ.
5. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, whereas in the EOC the Synods nominate the bishops for election, it is the Pope who nominates the bishops. I’m not sure how it works in the other OOC’s.
6. In the Armenian Church, the Catholicos ranks higher than Patriarchs in spiritual leadership.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well … how about Henry VIII?

Different times, my friend! Putin is not a prince.

 

[malphono]

Different times, my friend! Putin is not a prince.

You’re telling me!!!

An emperor-wanna-be, maybe … but a prince? :dts:

 

[Peter_J]

Dear brother PeterJ,

First principles. The High Petrine view espouses the following:

1. The head bishop has true power and authority by virtue of his office in his entire sphere of jurisdiction as head, a power and authority to be used in service to the Church, not to Lord it over others. He is not merely an administrative head, nor a tie-breaker in Council.
2. Though the head bishop has ordinary jurisdiction in the entire Church, including every diocese, where he is head, the head bishop only has proper jurisdiction in matters pertaining to his local diocese as bishop, and in matters pertaining to the entire Church where he is head, but not in matters pertaining to other local dioceses. (In layman’s terms, that means that a head bishop’s authority for the entire Church is always there, but it cannot be used regularly, but only when necessary.)
3. In matters pertaining to the entire Church (or entire particular Church) where he is head, the head bishop must have the consent (agreement, not permission) of the rest of the Church (in accordance with Apostolic Canon 34).
4. The head bishop is not above the Council/Synod, but is an intergral and indispensable member as its head, a headship that sets him apart from the other bishops (in accodance with Apostolic Canon 34).
5. Each bishop has authority in and of himself by virtue of his office, and is not merely a delegate or vicar of the head bishop.

Of course, there are differences between the Catholic and OO High Petrine perspectives, primarily due to the fact that Catholics believe the Church universal also has a head bishop (i.e., not just on the metropolitan or patriarchal levels).

It’s impossible to find an official document or standard manual on what Orientals believe about their Patriarchs, because such considerations are not really a predominant factor in Orthodox ecclesiology. The evidence for a High Petrine understanding of the Church is indirect and implied from its praxis. For example:

1. OO’s often refer to their Patriarchs as “supreme” or as “head of the Church” (terminology that EO often avoid).
2. In legislative matters, OO’s refer to their Patriarchs as “supreme judge.”
3. Patriarchal appointment of bishops is common practice.
4. At least in the Syriac family of Churches, the justification for the existence of the head bishop is theological, not merely canonical, based on the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles given to him by Christ.
5. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, whereas in the EOC the Synods nominate the bishops for election, it is the Pope who nominates the bishops. I’m not sure how it works in the other OOC’s.
6. In the Armenian Church, the Catholicos ranks higher than Patriarchs in spiritual leadership.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Explanation noted. I’ll wait to see what our Oriental Orthodox brethren have to say about it before adding my own comments.

 

[mardukm]

Explanation noted. I’ll wait to see what our Oriental Orthodox brethren have to say about it before adding my own comments.

It should be noted that I used the canonical terms “ordinary” and “proper” because I was responding to a Catholic. An Oriental Orthodox would not be familiar with these terms. If anyone would ask an Oriental Orthodox, I would use the “layman’s terms” given.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Here’s another topic that might be relevant for this thread.

In the Coptic Orthodox-EO dialogues, it has been expressed that many jurisdictions will have two bishops when unity occurs. From the OO perspective, such an arrangement is foreseeable - the “personal jurisdiction within territorial jurisidiction” idea that has been in existence among the OO for many centuries longer than in the CC. The idea of two bishops with the same territorial jurisdiction is also not unknown among the OO - take, for example, the patriarchal jurisdiction of Jerusalem, which has Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian head bishops. What do Easterns (Catholic or Orthodox) think about these forms of ecclesiastical administration? Do you think it would be acceptable in a united Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Here’s another topic that might be relevant for this thread.

In the Coptic Orthodox-EO dialogues, it has been expressed that many jurisdictions will have two bishops when unity occurs. From the OO perspective, such an arrangement is foreseeable - the “personal jurisdiction within territorial jurisidiction” idea that has been in existence among the OO for many centuries longer than in the CC. The idea of two bishops with the same territorial jurisdiction is also not unknown among the OO - take, for example, the patriarchal jurisdiction of Jerusalem, which has Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian head bishops. What do Easterns (Catholic or Orthodox) think about these forms of ecclesiastical administration? Do you think it would be acceptable in a united Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

That situation ends up giving rise to a certain phyletism. There should, ideally, be only one church in a given territory. Different rites are fine, but if you have different churches, even if they are in Communion, people don’t feel comfortable dealing with different churches and you basically have the same situation we have now.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Does anyone know if Putin is Russian Orthodox?

Has anyone ever asked him what he thinks about reunification of the two lungs of the church?

I would like to think that it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever what temporal governmental leaders think regarding issues involving the church–but can anyone seriously say that NO church leaders even consider what secular leader say?

I would think that Putin wouldn’t want Russia to be dominated by the West. I don’t know if in his mind that would bleed over into his views or the Russian governments views would be regarding uniting of the russian Orthodox church with the Catholic church.

Course on the other hand–maybe the Russian Orthodox Church’s leadership and what they think would have influence on what Russian secular leaders would think–in other words influence could run in both directions.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought that SOME of the reason for the great separation in 1054 had to do with secular reasons and secular divisions and not purely spiritual reasons.

Is that correct?

If that is correct and if it is also correct that it would one day be a good thing for reunification of the church to occur then maybe addressing misunderstandings at all levels between East and west would be a good thing.

I hope I live to see the day when the Pope might hug the leader of Russia.

Is it right to hope for such a thing?

 

[KnitNut]

I would think that Putin wouldn’t want Russia to be dominated by the West. I don’t know if in his mind that would bleed over into his views or the Russian governments views would be regarding uniting of the Russian Orthodox church with the Catholic church.

…implying that Rome would dominate the Orthodox churches? Hm. I do not think ‘unity’ means what you think it means…

I believe the “Two Lungs of the Roman Catholic Church” reference is meant to include the Latin Catholic side and the non-Latin (Eastern/Oriental) Catholic side, so you already have “both lungs”. Rome may be dominating the Eastern Catholic Churches, but it’s so unlikely that Orthodoxy would ever agree to tolerate similar meddling, should full communion be restored.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does anyone know if Putin is Russian Orthodox?

He’s been photographed at some services. Don’t be surprised if he’s as religious as American politicans are.

Has anyone ever asked him what he thinks about reunification of the two lungs of the church?

From an Orthodox perspective, there is no such thing. Actually most Orthodox would be insulted by the two-lung theory. It is as if they have been breathing on one lung the last 1000 years. For them they hold the true and authentic faith and they believe they have been firing on all cylinders since Pentecost.

I would like to think that it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever what temporal governmental leaders think regarding issues involving the church–but can anyone seriously say that NO church leaders even consider what secular leader say?

It would be nice if we’d go back to the time when secular leaders are religious and work closely with the Church. But then we need an emprie that has secular power over most of the world, like Rome.

I would think that Putin wouldn’t want Russia to be dominated by the West. I don’t know if in his mind that would bleed over into his views or the Russian governments views would be regarding uniting of the russian Orthodox church with the Catholic church.

If he were really religious, it is more unlikely he would accept unity at this point in time.

Course on the other hand–maybe the Russian Orthodox Church’s leadership and what they think would have influence on what Russian secular leaders would think–in other words influence could run in both directions.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought that SOME of the reason for the great separation in 1054 had to do with secular reasons and secular divisions and not purely spiritual reasons.

Is that correct?

If by secular reason you mean the Papal claim of universal jurisdiction and supremacy over all Churches, then yes.

If that is correct and if it is also correct that it would one day be a good thing for reunification of the church to occur then maybe addressing misunderstandings at all levels between East and west would be a good thing.

I hope I live to see the day when the Pope might hug the leader of Russia.

Is it right to hope for such a thing?

It is always right to hope for the best. Hope is a virtue after all.

 

[Peter_J]

…implying that Rome would dominate the Orthodox churches? Hm. I do not think ‘unity’ means what you think it means…

** I believe the “Two Lungs of the Roman Catholic Church” reference is meant to include the Latin Catholic side and the non-Latin (Eastern/Oriental) Catholic side**, so you already have “both lungs”. Rome may be dominating the Eastern Catholic Churches, but it’s so unlikely that Orthodoxy would ever agree to tolerate similar meddling, should full communion be restored.

I’ve heard all three possibilities concerning the “Eastern Lung” – that it’s Eastern Catholicism, that it’s Eastern Orthodoxy, and that it’s both – but I don’t believe JPII himself ever specified.

Personally, I have a hunch that the Pope meant that both Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are “the Eastern Lung” (which begets the question: Is Western-Rite Orthodoxy part of the “*Western *Lung”?)

 

[Nine_Two]

Does anyone know if Putin is Russian Orthodox?

It is generally accepted that he is. While Yeltsin went out of his way to be seen at certain Church events but showed little familiarity with the services, Putin has gone on his own and shown familiarity (so I hear)

Has anyone ever asked him what he thinks about reunification of the two lungs of the church?

I’m pretty sure the Two Lungs metaphor actually referred to the Eastern Catholics and the Roman Catholics. Personally I dislike it because it implies the Latin Church is as important as all the others combined, but I digress. To answer your question, not that I’ve ever heard.

I would like to think that it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever what temporal governmental leaders think regarding issues involving the church–but can anyone seriously say that NO church leaders even consider what secular leader say?

I doubt it would have much baring on anything.

I would think that Putin wouldn’t want Russia to be dominated by the West. I don’t know if in his mind that would bleed over into his views or the Russian governments views would be regarding uniting of the russian Orthodox church with the Catholic church.

While the Catholic laity want to see a union where the Western Church would come to dominate the Eastern (as evidenced through the case of the Eastern Catholics), this is not something that is on the table for Orthodoxy. Union, as we see it happening, would not result in anyone dominating anyone.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought that SOME of the reason for the great separation in 1054 had to do with secular reasons and secular divisions and not purely spiritual reasons.

I’d say cultural reasons were the most important issues getting to the point of schism, though the schism itself (specifically the issue in 1054) was caused by papal prelates trying to expand the power of the papacy.

If that is correct and if it is also correct that it would one day be a good thing for reunification of the church to occur then maybe addressing misunderstandings at all levels between East and west would be a good thing.

Of course.

Is it right to hope for such a thing?

To hope for it is fine. To expect it is something else.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Does anyone know if Putin is Russian Orthodox?

It is generally accepted that he is. While Yeltsin went out of his way to be seen at certain Church events but showed little familiarity with the services, Putin has gone on his own and shown familiarity (so I hear)

At the funeral DL of the late +Patriarch Alexy II, Putin was pretty high on the list of dignitaries to pay personal respects, behind the immediate family yet ahead of most of the hierarch of the ROC.

FWIW I’ve seen him in videos of every holy day service of recent memory.

One never knows what’s in a man’s heart, but he has been a visible presence at Patriarchal Divine Liturgies.