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.
Dear brother Nine_Two,
That situation ends up giving rise to a certain phyletism.
Can you please explain this? I would think the idea of more than one ritual Church in a territory would deprive phyletism of its relevance.
There should, ideally, be only one church in a given territory.
I believe the canonical prescription is that there should be one bishop in one city, not necessarily one particular Church. If a region consists of more than one city, why can’t bishops share the same territorial region, but simply have their seats in different cities? Of course, the notion of “city” is obviously subjective, so that should be considered as well…
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.
Could your perspective be borne of the fact that you as an EO are simply not used to the idea? It’s certainly worked fine for Catholics in Canada and Syria, for instance, or for Oriental Orthodox in Israel and Egypt.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I would think the idea of more than one ritual Church in a territory would deprive phyletism of its relevance.
I see you point, but would only suggest that at times this seems to accentuate the differences. It is further complicated by the existence of ethnic parishes in the Latin Church. For example, the “four corner” churches still stand in my mother’s very small home town - Slovak Catholic, Polish Catholic, Irish Catholic and Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic. Their identities are well retained too this day, and the town folk tend to identify you socially by the church you attend more so than any other factor.
I believe the canonical prescription is that there should be one bishop in one city, not necessarily one particular Church. If a region consists of more than one city, why can’t bishops share the same territorial region, but simply have their seats in different cities?
I believe you are correct, and this is the general Orthodox view as a consequence of that canonical basis.

But imagine the level of unity implied by this approach in a unified Apostolic Church. You could have a Latin hierarch responsible for a fair number of EC/OC in his canonical territory, or vice versa. Methinks this would take a lot of “getting used to” if it became reality.

A suggested possible approach in this model (which has been considered by some joint Orthodox-Catholic study groups) would have Auxiliary Bishops appointed to focus on the care of the ritual parishes in the territory.

In the end, this would force the notion of One Church, with multiple ritual expressions. The irony is that this is not consistent with the current ecclesiastical model in Orthodoxy (nor in Catholicism).
 
I, on the other hand, don’t really understand unfortunately. I take it you are both saying that overlapping ritual Churches is actually a remedy to phyletism, but I fail to see how that’s true.
I said nothing of the sort, and simply shared an observation that contrasted with markdum’s view, while acknowledging that I could appreciate his point of view (yes, a rarity here on the CAF).
 
Thanks, ByzCathCantor. I guess I misunderstood what you meant when you said “I see your point” after quoting
I would think the idea of more than one ritual Church in a territory would deprive phyletism of its relevance.
Could you clarify?
 
Can you please explain this? I would think the idea of more than one ritual Church in a territory would deprive phyletism of its relevance.
It means that you end up with ethnic communities that do not co-mingle. Remember there is no Greek or Jew before Christ. All are called to be one.
I believe the canonical prescription is that there should be one bishop in one city, not necessarily one particular Church. If a region consists of more than one city, why can’t bishops share the same territorial region, but simply have their seats in different cities? Of course, the notion of “city” is obviously subjective, so that should be considered as well…
The canonical prescription is for one bishop per region. The term city is often used because in the Roman world they were near synonyms.
Could your perspective be borne of the fact that you as an EO are simply not used to the idea? It’s certainly worked fine for Catholics in Canada and Syria, for instance, or for Oriental Orthodox in Israel and Egypt.
No offense but that question is easily turned around, Is your perspective borne of the fact that the Catholics have discarded the idea?
While I am largely ignorant of the OO, I see in the Catholic Church, and even in the Orthodox Church here in North America, every reason why this should be kept. There is a ghettoization of communities under different bishops who don’t interact with each other at nearly the same level as churches under the same bishop.
 
Although I do not have any news as such as to the state of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue (other than it has been of great mutual interest), I would like to comment regarding that seeming great challenge to Catholic-Orthodox Christian Unity, the papacy, as, before converting to Roman Catholicism, I spent 22 blessed years in Holy Orthodoxy.

In doing so, I would like to comment on the various papal titles.

First of all, I would note that, papal titles notwithstanding, for practical purposes, modern popes tend not to preside by enforcing their raw canonical power (of which they have considerable) but by the grace of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, i.e., charismatically as spiritual leaders rather than juridical leaders. The influence of these modern popes is primarily in the Holy Spirit - and consequently their influence has been enormous, because they have chosen to imitate the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-18). In this manner modern popes have shown themselves as winsome, Christ-manifesting Spirit-filled leaders of what the Orthodox call “The Church Which Presides in Love” (essay of the same name by Nicholas Afanasieff in the Orthodx book “The Primacy of Peter,” John Meyendorff, Editor).

For that reason and for many others I am deeply and prayerfully hopeful that the Church of the West and the Churches of the East, which for over 1,000 years (Pentecost until 1054 AD) were the One Holy Undivided Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ will find their way back into being by the grace of God the One Holy Undivided Church of Christ again.

SUPREME PONTIFF: Meaning “Supreme Bridge-Builder,” it could tempt a Pope to focus on canonical power. But if the Pope focuses on building bridges (“Pontiff”) to the Orthodox, there are all kinds of wonderful Christianity Unity-building possibilities.

POPE: A word meaning, “Papa,” it has all kinds of possibilities. After all, who would not like to be part of a loving family?

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST: Although this title has received less emphasis in recent years, from an Orthodox standpoint it acknowledges the Church of Rome as one of the ancient five patriarchates.

SUPREME PASTOR (an official title - Canon 333): This papal title (It was used by John Paul II), it has the appeal of being Biblical, alluding to the ministry of Jesus Christ as Good Shepherd (John 10) - highlighting the Savior’s Love - and would therefore have wide appeal to the Orthodox.

VICAR OF CHRIST: Although all Christians - and especially the Bishops - are in a sense Vicars of Christ, the Pope is Representative or Deputy of Christ in a very special way, charged by Him to “Feed My sheep” (see John 21:15-19; see also Matthew 16:17-19), that is, the whole Holy Church of God. If the Pope can exercise this ministry in a primarily spiritual, charismatic way, rather than a primarily canonical way, this formula could be acceptable to the Orthodox, who see their Bishops as “vicars of Christ.”

SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD: This title, which the Popes use when signing official documents of the Holy See, alludes to the verse of the Gospel, “… the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). This evangelical saying has enormous ecumenical Christian Unity possibilities and great Christian appeal across the board. Over the last few years there have been a spate of books on servant leadership - by not only Catholics but also by Protestants, Anglicans and Orthodox. The repentant, loving spiritual humility which this verse implies implies the Holy Spirit of Christ in Whom to approach not only our brother and sister Orthodox but also our separated brother and sister Christians in the Christian communities of the Reformation.

In short, I believe that by the Grace of God the Papacy can be not just a blessing but an actual vehicle of Unity and full communion with the Holy Orthodox Church.
 
Although I do not have any news as such as to the state of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue (other than it has been of great mutual interest), I would like to comment regarding that seeming great challenge to Catholic-Orthodox Christian Unity, the papacy, as, before converting to Roman Catholicism, I spent 22 blessed years in Holy Orthodoxy.

In doing so, I would like to comment on the various papal titles.

First of all, I would note that, papal titles notwithstanding, for practical purposes, modern popes tend not to preside by enforcing their raw canonical power (of which they have considerable) but by the grace of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, i.e., charismatically as spiritual leaders rather than juridical leaders. The influence of these modern popes is primarily in the Holy Spirit - and consequently their influence has been enormous, because they have chosen to imitate the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-18). In this manner modern popes have shown themselves as winsome, Christ-manifesting Spirit-filled leaders of what the Orthodox call “The Church Which Presides in Love” (essay of the same name by Nicholas Afanasieff in the Orthodx book “The Primacy of Peter,” John Meyendorff, Editor).

For that reason and for many others I am deeply and prayerfully hopeful that the Church of the West and the Churches of the East, which for over 1,000 years (Pentecost until 1054 AD) were the One Holy Undivided Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ will find their way back into being by the grace of God the One Holy Undivided Church of Christ again.

SUPREME PONTIFF: Meaning “Supreme Bridge-Builder,” it could tempt a Pope to focus on canonical power. But if the Pope focuses on building bridges (“Pontiff”) to the Orthodox, there are all kinds of wonderful Christianity Unity-building possibilities.

POPE: A word meaning, “Papa,” it has all kinds of possibilities. After all, who would not like to be part of a loving family?

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST: Although this title has received less emphasis in recent years, from an Orthodox standpoint it acknowledges the Church of Rome as one of the ancient five patriarchates.

SUPREME PASTOR (an official title - Canon 333): This papal title (It was used by John Paul II), it has the appeal of being Biblical, alluding to the ministry of Jesus Christ as Good Shepherd (John 10) - highlighting the Savior’s Love - and would therefore have wide appeal to the Orthodox.

VICAR OF CHRIST: Although all Christians - and especially the Bishops - are in a sense Vicars of Christ, the Pope is Representative or Deputy of Christ in a very special way, charged by Him to “Feed My sheep” (see John 21:15-19; see also Matthew 16:17-19), that is, the whole Holy Church of God. If the Pope can exercise this ministry in a primarily spiritual, charismatic way, rather than a primarily canonical way, this formula could be acceptable to the Orthodox, who see their Bishops as “vicars of Christ.”

SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD: This title, which the Popes use when signing official documents of the Holy See, alludes to the verse of the Gospel, “… the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). This evangelical saying has enormous ecumenical Christian Unity possibilities and great Christian appeal across the board. Over the last few years there have been a spate of books on servant leadership - by not only Catholics but also by Protestants, Anglicans and Orthodox. The repentant, loving spiritual humility which this verse implies implies the Holy Spirit of Christ in Whom to approach not only our brother and sister Orthodox but also our separated brother and sister Christians in the Christian communities of the Reformation.

In short, I believe that by the Grace of God the Papacy can be not just a blessing but an actual vehicle of Unity and full communion with the Holy Orthodox Church.
Nice that you actually wrote the book compiled by John Meyendorff. The problem really with the Papacy is not where it is today because it is not beyond Orthodoxy to agree to such universal jurisdiction by one bishop. The problem is the fact that such a position is dogmatized. As the book wonderfully summarizes, the Orthodox can revert back to the Eucharistic Ecclesiology if they so wish but the Catholic Church cannot because of Pastor Aeternus. We are hoping that the Papacy was just a line in the sand but the Catholic Church turned it into a permanent obstacle. I don’t think the talks can progress with Pastor Aeternus in existence.
 
SUPREME PONTIFF: Meaning “Supreme Bridge-Builder,” it could tempt a Pope to focus on canonical power. But if the Pope focuses on building bridges (“Pontiff”) to the Orthodox, there are all kinds of wonderful Christianity Unity-building possibilities.
You mean like the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzherod? Those “bridges” are still around today.
 
Dear brother ConstantineTG,
Nice that you actually wrote the book compiled by John Meyendorff. The problem really with the Papacy is not where it is today because it is not beyond Orthodoxy to agree to such universal jurisdiction by one bishop. The problem is the fact that such a position is dogmatized. As the book wonderfully summarizes, the Orthodox can revert back to the Eucharistic Ecclesiology if they so wish but the Catholic Church cannot because of Pastor Aeternus. We are hoping that the Papacy was just a line in the sand but the Catholic Church turned it into a permanent obstacle. I don’t think the talks can progress with Pastor Aeternus in existence.
Why do you think the dogmas on the papacy are a barrier to Eucharistic ecclesiology? Please explain that in detail. I notice you cited John Meyendorff, so perhaps you can just post his explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Why do you think the dogmas on the papacy are a barrier to Eucharistic ecclesiology? Please explain that in detail. I notice you cited John Meyendorff, so perhaps you can just post his explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk
Perhaps I am misinterpreting his statement, but it appeared to me that he was not citing Meyendorff, but rather suggesting that the other poster presented the material without citing it. Hence his, nice to see you actually wrote the book… comment.
 
Dear brother Jwinch2,
Perhaps I am misinterpreting his statement, but it appeared to me that he was not citing Meyendorff, but rather suggesting that the other poster presented the material without citing it. Hence his, nice to see you actually wrote the book… comment.
Brother CTG stated that the “Eucharistic ecclesiology” comment came from “the book” so I assume he is referring to the same book written by John Meyendorff.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Jwinch2,

Brother CTG stated that the “Eucharistic ecclesiology” comment came from “the book” so I assume he is referring to the same book written by John Meyendorff.

Blessings,
Marduk
Ah, I see it now. Please go back to your regularly scheduled program. 😉

Peace,
 
As the book wonderfully summarizes, the Orthodox can revert back to the Eucharistic Ecclesiology if they so wish but the Catholic Church cannot because of Pastor Aeternus.
I guess that might depend on whose definition of Eucharistic Ecclesiology you’re using. Although, to be honest, I don’t have the time and energy to do anything about it tonight, other than this short post.
 
Perhaps I am misinterpreting his statement, but it appeared to me that he was not citing Meyendorff, but rather suggesting that the other poster presented the material without citing it. Hence his, nice to see you actually wrote the book… comment.
The user did cite, so I’m guessing he meant read. Constantine has been recommending it for a bit now. 😃
 
You mean like the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzherod? Those “bridges” are still around today.
I have been fascinated by your frequent reference to the Union of Brest (and now also the Union of Uzhhorod). Are you under the impresion that these were somehow forced by Rome?
 
I have been fascinated by your frequent reference to the Union of Brest (and now also the Union of Uzhhorod). Are you under the impresion that these were somehow forced by Rome?
It’s true that, in the last 3 weeks or so, I have talked about the Unions more frequently than I usually do; but that wasn’t deliberately planned.

In this particular case, it seems pretty natural to think of the Unions, in reaction to an ex-Orthodox extolling the Popes for “building bridges to the Orthodox”.
You mean like the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzherod? Those “bridges” are still around today.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind here is that some Catholics still regard Eastern Catholicism as a bridge, but some other Catholics have moved past that.
 
The user did cite, so I’m guessing he meant read. Constantine has been recommending it for a bit now. 😃
I had interpreted the “Nice that you actually wrote the book compiled by John Meyendorff” comment to be a bit of a jab. I guess I was wrong, which is hardly a unique experience. 😉
 
I believe the canonical prescription is that there should be one bishop in one city, not necessarily one particular Church. If a region consists of more than one city, why can’t bishops share the same territorial region, but simply have their seats in different cities? Of course, the notion of “city” is obviously subjective, so that should be considered as well…
Keep in mind, Mardukm, that most cities at that time were several days travel apart.

Chorbishops came about because it was essential to have someone in the episcopal oversight role for the larger towns that were not cities - and there was a distinction between them.

Towns were typically a half-day’s or a day’s walk apart. Cities were often 2-4 towns apart… The prescription for a bishop per city was prescriptive as well as proscriptive… and chorbishops didn’t count. That is, in christian lands, every city should have a bishop, and only a city should have a bishop, and each bishop should have a city of his own.

Our modern cities are both physically closer, physically larger, and the travel time between them, thanks to modern travel modes, is frequently an hour or two, not 2-3 days by camel.

Keep in mind - a pair of cities some 30-40 miles apart, not even an hour by car, are 2-3 days apart by foot or hoof… a bishop would have a hard time making all the towns.
 
I had interpreted the “Nice that you actually wrote the book compiled by John Meyendorff” comment to be a bit of a jab. I guess I was wrong, which is hardly a unique experience. 😉
My apologies. I really shouldn’t be posting while at work 😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top