quote:

---

Pope Benedict XVI (the then Cardinal Ratzinger) view on achieving East - West unity.

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Ratzinger, Joseph: PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, Ignatius, 1988, page 199-200

---

quote:

---

http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/reese/ec/ec-6komonch.htm

Comments by Fr. Joseph Komanchak, professor CUA, and member of the North American Commission of Orthodox and Roman Catholics. (SCOBA / NCCB) .

Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of "patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.

In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:

"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form."

After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded: "Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous "patriarchates" or "great churches" or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."

---

I understand the historical reasons for the Patriarch of Rome to create a centralized authority for the people in the West.

Can we go beyond what divided the two Churches? I know that what the Pope proposed cannot be accepted as is by the Orthodox. However, I find it a step in the right direction. What do you think?

[ 06. April 2006, 09:18: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Very interesting. I've long felt that as, a historical development of long standing, the Bishop of Rome deserves some stature as Patriarch of the West even though one rejects infallibility or even supremacy.

Do I read him correctly to infer: (1) The concept of patriarchs is still relevant, but (2) The historic territories are subject to adjustment with changing circumstances, e.g. the territory of the Patriarch of the West has come to encompass most of the world and might be rearranged. (3) Various practices and theological emphases or nuances are to be expected in the various patriarchates. "The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy...To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration."

He still assumes, however, that the purviews of the patriarchs must be defined geographically, with the natural result that a usage acceptable in one region is unacceptable in another. Why must this be? Is this geographical assumption necessary, or even very astute, in an age characterized by mobility, globe-trotting, and cosmopolitan intermingling of peoples?
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
It is a step in the right direction ... but does he still believe the same things now?
 

---

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :
 
Well tomorrow is the feast of the Chair of Peter...
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Very good point Fr Gregory. Was it Pio Nono who reputedly said: "Before we were pope we believed in infallibility. Now we are pope, we feel it". ?

I think Alogon your point is equally good. But remember the date - 1988. There was, I would argue, even such short a time ago, less consciousness of globalisation and the free migration of peoples. So geographical definitions still came easiest.

But also beware and do not read too much into what Ratzinger is saying: look carefully and papal infallibility and primacy remain embedded in the Ratzinger model.

I wonder at our Orthodox brethren being so quick to say it's a move in the right direction, though, because it seems to me he is simply enunciating the principles by which those disparagingly referred to as "uniates" are operating now: own liturgy, own canon law, own customs, bishops confirmed rather than appointed by Rome....
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Triple Tiara

ANYTHING that moderates the ongoing suction toward the Centre is welcome. I didn't say adequate!

[ 21. February 2006, 20:51: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Well yes - I think many in the West say the same thing! But that's another matter ....
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Well, that also is encouraging. Frankly there is nothing I would welcome more in respect of ecumenism than a return in the west to the characteristic papacy of the first millennium then we can sort out a new viable reunion which would truly embrace the whole of both churches. That wouldn't mean a slavish copying but an implementation of the same spirit in new clothing.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Hee hee I read that as slarve-ish copying. Made me think of the nickname JPII had in some Curial circles in Rome: "Superslav"

JPII's "Ut Unum Sint" invited reflections on these things. Problem was when some of our own lot took him up on this they were firmly slapped down. I don't think that was a very encouraging sign for our ecumenical partners, but the irony of this curial heavy-handedness seemed to be lost on those very curial officials.

I'm not sure we are going to go very far with it though as the ultra-montanist principle has been strongly at work of late in our Church. This may be regarded as a pity if one looks at it from certain angles, and it does produce some seriously disordered approaches to Church: the parody of Dalek Ratzinger going around saying "excommunicate" refers! This has never been accurate of him, of course, but entirely accurate of the attitude of some of our more extreme contingents. See here for an example.

But Rome has also been the only way in which some completely loopy stuff has been held in check. For me personally, Rome and the curia is an essential aspect of a universal church. I cannot see how the primacy can exist without it. Because I think one needs a Primate with teeth if one is going to have one! Rottweiler teeth if necessary. I think "primacy of honour" is a get-out clause concept which ultimately lets one down. Primacy is not about honour but about ministry, as today's Gospel in the Roman Rite makes clear. By and large Rome's interventions are very limited and usually absolutely necessary. Contrary to some pundits, they do not micro-manage the universal Church.

So, how do you envisage a decentralised church operating, Fr G? How does one deal with the complexities of a global religion?

More thoughts to follow if we sustain this thread. Hopefully not just a re-hash of the Petrine Primacy of some months ago.

And happy Feast of the Chair of Peter, 22 Feb.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I think Cardinal Ratzinger has already answered your question, Triple Tiara, from above:

quote:

---

To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form.

---

Indeed, concerning administration, the pope would then have no teeth, other than in his own patriarchate. And as we've read above, his own patriarchate would presumably be significantly reduced in size. If Africa and Asia are on the cards, then so must be the Americas. The pope's power would be "presiding in charity" among the other patriarchs, who have the necessary administrative teeth for their flock. Basically, St Peter's voice would be the one that binds the patriarchs through their union in charity, not through administrative powers. I would imagine that in practice we would see regular patriarchal meetings to coordinate policy, with the pope presiding both in the sense of formalities and in the sense of leadership.

Further, the pope never can lose the powers given to St Peter by Jesus, he can give binding interpretations of revelation concerning faith and morals. That means he has another power lever. Let's say the pope infallibly declares that there can be no ordination of women (if he hasn't already done so, never mind that discussion...). The future patriarch of North America, for example, can then not simply ordain women even though the pope does not have administrative means of stopping him. He would simply lose the unity with St Peter if he did so.

I would be quite happy with a re-organisation like that. I think it's quite important to rediscover the good of "unity in charity" as more important than "unity in administration". When all is said and done, the pope is a kingly shepherd, not a shepherdly king.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Yes, but .....

In some ways that is already what happens, except we do not use the term "Patriarch" apart from the ancient Sees. The local Church is largely autonomous. It's only when there are implications for the Universal Church that Rome becomes involved.

And do we really want a replication of curias? I would have thought not. One curia is about as much as I can cope with!

This reminds me a bit of my own diocese, and the model used in some others. I think of Chicago as an example. Under Cardinal Hume, the Archdiocese of Westminster was carved up into 5 "Pastoral Areas". Each had an "Area Bishop" who had his own administrative set-up, his own advisers, deans, departments etc. But then they all had to meet up to discuss what went on out in the other areas and arrive at agreed common policies and codes of practice for the whole diocese. It seemed to go on endlessly. And the number of meetings! Jaysus wept! "God so loved the world he didn't send a committee".

When Cormac Murphy-O'C came along he undid all that because he felt the integrity and unity of the diocese had been compromised. The central budget was significantly lowered and suddenly things happened in unison throughout the diocese again. The auxiliary bishops got on with pastoral work rather than presiding over replicated bureaucracies. Most of us think that was a good move - it's all that little bit more efficient again.

One of the big issues, I think, is management style. Our current curial style is just way too Italian. I have been to conferences and consultations in Rome and I can tell you:




It's all of those things. By turns comic and awe-inspiring; dull and inspirational and so on. Bella figura is the rule - and one goes to a consultation to listen, not to contribute! And since the ministry of the pope is today exercised and dressed up in an Italian idiom, that's what we get ... Italian.

But then I like all that and would hate to see it go. I love all things Italian too!!! So I get caught in a quandary on this one. I don't think it's that broke personally so there's not much need for fixing.

And, by the way, I hear very few of our bishops throughout the world regularly complaining about Rome interfering.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Frankly, if the price to be paid for a re-union with the Orthodox is an inefficient bureaucracy - at least at first - then so be it. That sort of stuff can all be fixed later if everyone agrees that it needs to be fixed. But given the rather limited enthusiasm for unity and the enormous chip on the shoulder with regards to history on the Orthodox side, I think grand symbolic gestures will be absolutely required of Rome. Saying that the bishops are fairly free as is in the Roman hierarchy simply won't be enough.

It's all a fairly pointless discussion anyway. I see no signs whatsoever that the Orthodox are moving on the minimal conditions of the West: acceptance of the RCC's post-schism development as orthodox (or at least as non-heretical) and acceptance of the infallibility of the pope's decisions on faith and morals under specific circumstances.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
TT,

What precisely is the problem with Italian management styles?

(not a trap - I'm genuinely curious).
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
You will be surprised IngoB what can happen when the shackles of intransigency begin to loosen ... on both sides. A Christian has to be a person of vigorous hope.

Dear Triple Tiara

In response to your question ... the Orthodox manage coherence and faithfulness by an incredibly strong sense of what Orthodoxy is at all levels. I understand the need for Rome to crack the whip sometimes in the context of you structures and ethos ... but it ain't the only way. We manage faithfulness without such mechanisms.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You will be surprised IngoB what can happen when the shackles of intransigency begin to loosen ... on both sides. A Christian has to be a person of vigorous hope.

---

I will start believing that when I see that you are revising your many articles according to the new motto "Western - and in particular Augustinian - doctrine, rightly understood, is compatible with Orthodoxy". When the convert's shackles of needing to prove the rightness of their choice begin to loosen, union will be imminent - or perhaps the Second Coming.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... I see no signs whatsoever that the Orthodox are moving on the minimal conditions of the West: acceptance of the RCC's post-schism development as orthodox (or at least as non-heretical) and acceptance of the infallibility of the pope's decisions on faith and morals under specific circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Does it occur to you that RCs might believe papal infallibility to be a divinely given truth which they are not free to dispense with at will? That might be a more charitable reading than one which sees it as all about them being Top Dog.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I see no signs whatsoever that the Orthodox are moving on the minimal conditions of the West: acceptance of the RCC's post-schism development as orthodox (or at least as non-heretical) and acceptance of the infallibility of the pope's decisions on faith and morals under specific circumstances.

---

As a simple layperson, I could see some hope for some of the first [though I think you've got some work to do on energies and essences ], but I fear the second will be the sticking point. Everything I've read about Orthodoxy places importance on conciliar decisions rather than those of the Bishop of Rome.

But I pray for unity. And pray. And pray.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I wonder if a recognition that the charism of infallibility is characteristically and most properly excerised through an ecumenical council could provide any sort of way forward.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
The the words of 1870 by which the doctrine was defined is obviously not pre-Reformation or Pre-Schism.

But our contention is that this was simply a codification of what was already accepted in Patristic times. "What you bind on earth" and all that; "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" according to Augustine; "Peter has spoken through Leo" according to the Council of Chalcedon etc etc

Our big Achilles heel is that we are ROMAN - strongly inclined towards a legal and contractual frameworks for everything, and an irresistable urge to codify. Had Vatican I not codified what was meant, the truth would still have been the same - Peter is at the helm and what he says goes.

(Problem is lots of little Vatican monsignori forget that they are just stokers in the engine room of the barque of Peter, they are not Peter himself!)
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

(Problem is lots of little Vatican monsignori forget that they are just stokers in the engine room of the barque of Peter, they are not Peter himself!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Had Vatican I not codified what was meant, the truth would still have been the same - Peter is at the helm and what he says goes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:

---

(Problem is lots of little Vatican monsignori forget that they are just stokers in the engine room of the barque of Peter, they are not Peter himself!)

---

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, Pot.

---

 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Maximos the Confessor's reply (and indeed what I have been taught in school as the Orthodox position) is that when everything gets done by the book, then the council is binding (be it either local or ecumenical).
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Maximos the Confessor's reply (and indeed what I have been taught in school as the Orthodox position) is that when everything gets done by the book, then the council is binding (be it either local or ecumenical).

---

Which book and who wrote it? I'm asking what the rules are that would allow us to say in advance of a council that if a certain list of conditions were satisfied, the results would be infallible.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Mate, we are discussing about sex in Hell, and you want to talk about how a(n ecumenical) council is done?

I have quoted what the Saint said in another thread a few months ago. Perhaps later I could translate it again for you. In a nutshell the Saint says that the Church accepts as authoritative the councils where the members were called according to the Church order, where letters of recomendation were written for the members of the council, where those above in Church administration approved the members from the area they take care of, where all opinions have been heard, etc.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
very nice first line andreas!

So, why is Maximos so authoritative and why should we obey his rules? Who gave him power to make the rules?
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
So what was wrong with Florence again?
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
[massive cross-post: sorry, I'm a slow typer!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
While I'm on this tack, could the Orthodox contingent please explain to me how one identifies an Ecumenical Council as opposed to merely a global council of bishops that got the answers wrong?

---

quote:

---

the bishops recognise what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an asssent which is not, as a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived.

...

The ecumenicity of a counsil cannot be determined by outward criteria alone: 'Truth can have no external criterion, for it manifest of itself and made inwardly plain.'

---

Not sure how much that helps. I generally don't dwell on it.

[ 22. February 2006, 11:56: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
So what was wrong with Florence again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Andreas, who wrote the canons concerning Councils then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
You can also take a look at the canons of the ecumenical (or local) councils that have to do with how councils are done.

---

You can't appeal to the authority of an ecumenical council's canons in order to define the rules used to determine whether a council is ecumenical or not. It's circular reasoning.

It's like those who argue that the Bible is authoritative because it says it is. You're saying a council is authoritative if it meets the conditions it wrote down itself.

So you must have a higher standard that determines whether a council is real or not. It might be the mind of the majority of Christians, but then people will mention Athanasius. If you can play the numbers game then the Roman Catholics are authoritative in a way Orthodoxy is not because they outnumber you seven to one or so, so I don't think this is it for Orthodoxy. On the other hand you could attempt to identify orthodoxy from looking at what the early Church believed, but if so you'd have a lot of Protestants grinning smugly.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
An ecumenical council would not involve either the Roman Catholics or the Protestants. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here...
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 


No, it would not involve schismatics, apostates and heretics.

Which is why some have not been at ALL of the 21 ecumenical councils to date. The Holy Spirit has not been on holiday since the 10th century.

Just so we all know what we are talking about here.

[ 22. February 2006, 12:59: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Triple Tiara, the fact that no great heresies arose in the East in the past 1000 years does not mean that the Holy Spirit was on holidays (in Rome, presumably). Quite the contrary!

[ETA] TT, how old are you? I'm curious...

[ 22. February 2006, 13:07: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I'll try again, Andreas.

Try and put yourself in the shoes of someone not brought up to believe Orthodoxy to be the One Church and all other church-like groupings of Christians heretical, just for the sake of argument.

There are many differing opinions on many issues to do with the Faith, amongst those groups self-identifying as Christians. Either one individually attempts to identify the truth of each matter without reference to any particular authority in the Church (and please remember, for my purposes here I am not identifying the Orthodox Church with the whole Church) - which is what Protestants are frequently accused of - or one attempts to identify a legitimate source of authority.

Now, you can't say an ecumenical council has the authority to define which councils are ecumenical because it's just like me writing a book that begins "everything that follows is true." So the authority of a council must rest on something higher than circular reasoning. If that authority is the assent of the people of God then you have a big problem countering the Catholics when they assent to something en masse, and if that authority is reasoning from Scripture and the ECFs against the mind of the broader Church, then you're doing what Protestants are accused of doing.

Note that you can't cite the authority of the Orthodox Church here because you can't identify orthodoxy with Orthodoxy unless you invoke obedience to councils, or individual assessment of where the true Church is to be found.

None of that is to say that the Orthodox Church is not the One True Church, just that I don't see a logical argument that does not rest on the individual's ability to identify orthodoxy separately from the current teaching of the hierarchy of the day, which is what Luther tried to do. One might well go down that line of thinking and deduce Orthodoxy is the true(st) Church but that is, it seems to me, a very Protestant approach - not that that's necessarily a bad thing.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
But there should be no separation between orthodoxy and what the hierarchy thinks, because of the close relation between the hierarch and the church. Without a hierarch, there is no church.

OK, if I understood right what you are saying, then my reply would be that one should read about the history of the church. Read as much as possible, from the acts of the councils, be it either local or ecumenical, read what the ancient Saints confessed as the faith they received from those that were before them, and you can reach to the understanding you are seeking for. I think.

So, historical consistence is my argument.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
But only from one perspective - and that perspective exists in order to justify a position. There are other perspectives which equally logically and honestly arrive at other conclusions. It's all a bit like St Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.

And, by the way, if nothing ill ever possibly comes out of the East, why do Orthodox patriarchs and bishops keep excommunicating each other?
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Oh, and by the way andreas, the Holy Spirit has not been on holiday in Rome - Rome is where he lives.

TT - 40
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Triple Tiara wrote:
And, by the way, if nothing ill ever possibly comes out of the East, why do Orthodox patriarchs and bishops keep excommunicating each other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, historical consistence is my argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I agree as an indicator but the Coptic Church has been as consistent as the Orthodox

---

quote:

---

and as far as I can tell, Rome was consistently truer to orthodoxy in the first millennium than the East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I agree as an indicator but the Coptic Church has been as consistent as the Orthodox

---

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that monophysitism is historical more consistent with what the Apostles believed in than diphysitism?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

and as far as I can tell, Rome was consistently truer to orthodoxy in the first millennium than the East.

---

You are forgeting the monothelite controversy...

---

quote:

---

But even if that was the case, I would say that the question is not what they believed in during the first millenium, but what they believe in now.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(Problem is lots of little Vatican monsignori forget that they are just stokers in the engine room of the barque of Peter, they are not Peter himself!)

---

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, Pot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, it's not. They said "this is what we were brought up with, but we don't agree with you; let's discuss about it", rather than confessing the faith they received.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I'm glad the Copts got a mention. I have my doubts about Chalcedon and the branding of the Armenians, Copts etc as monophysites because it is palpably not true.

---

Right... We are saying we have a different faith from them, they are saying they have a different faith from us, yet it's all a misunderstanding because you say so?

Come on. I recall a few years ago a meeting about the issue. We were ready to sign a joint document when, at the last minute, it became apparent that the two churches used the same words with quite different meanings in mind.

And no boy from Athos took part in that meeting

[ETA] TT, you are having an influence on my sense of humour, and that's not good

[ 22. February 2006, 15:21: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Andreas, are you not aware of how frequently the arguments of the Reformers are based on the ECFs along with Holy Scripture?

The notion that they did not want to learn from the ancients is not credible and probably insulting to the majority of modern Protestant theologians.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
As you currently think Roman Catholcis are heretics I assume you would not object to their disagreeing with it?

---

We are much closer with the Roman Catholics than one might think!

But it was supposed to be one post; not two... What I meant is that they said something like this: "this is what we believe, you [the Orthodox] ascribe to what we believe or you are bloody heretics like the Romans". (or words to that extent )
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Andreas, are you not aware of how frequently the arguments of the Reformers are based on the ECFs along with Holy Scripture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
We are much closer with the Roman Catholics than one might think!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
But I don't want either to derail the thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
They did that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But I pray for unity. And pray. And pray.

---

Me too. I'm not even RC or Orthodox.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I'm giving up trying to explain, Andreas.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Its impossible to separarte the Catholic view on papal primacy from today's gospel reading, commemorating St Peter's Chair at Antioch. Like St Peter's Chair at Rome (Jan 18th) in Matt 16.13-19, Christ specifically promises the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and the power to bind and loose on earth which will be honoured in heaven. If one accepts the Popes as legitimate heirs of Peter it is difficult to deny them this Christ ordained authority.

Yet both the major schisms, that between East and West usually arbitrarily assigned to 1054, and the later Reformation centred on disputes revolving around Papal authority. So any hope of reconciliation depends on harmonisation of what one means by Petrine primacy. Its difficult to know if Pope Benedict XVI feel the same about this now as he did in 1988, but his comments quoted on this thread suggest to me that humility on both sides between Catholic and Orthodox coupled with a willingness for flexibility could form the basis for the opening of dialogue on this age old issue.

The question of Protestants is altogether more difficult. Protestantism by nature is anti-authority. Many, though by no means all, Anglicans would have no difficulty with the concept of the Pope as natural leader of world Christianity, but as Benedict in his previous incarnation as Cardinal Ratzinger realised, Rome has to move. His speech last year in which he confirmed that the Pope's position is more that od guardian of the faith rather than ultimate authority is, IMO a positive step. Bearing in mind that all Christians, in disobeying Christ's command that we should all be one, are in error, the opening of dialogue aimed at healing age old schisms should be seen as a divine command.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
and the power to bind and loose on earth which will be honoured in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreus 1984
The power to bind and loose is given to all the Apostles .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
if I understood right what you are saying, then my reply would be that one should read about the history of the church. Read as much as possible, from the acts of the councils, be it either local or ecumenical, read what the ancient Saints confessed as the faith they received from those that were before them, and you can reach to the understanding you are seeking for.

---

But there are millions of people who have done just that and come to the conclusion that the Catholics or the Protestants were right. And that there are anything from 4 to 20-something valid ecumenical councils.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
ken, in the undivided Church, the priests could give absolution to the faithful for their sins. This is a fact. Do Protestants having read about Church history accept that the priests can give absolution?

It's not as simple as you present it to be.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Whizzing over your slam at Luther,

it might be worth noting that Lutherans (and Luther, natch) believe that priests can pronounce absolution. In fact, we believe that all Christians can do so, in their God-given authority as "the royal priesthood" of God's people.

Now whether you'd class us as Protestants, well, now, that's a different matter.....
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Please note that I am not talking about Luther per se, but I'm responding to an argument ken made about people reading history and arriving to different conclusions...

In the case of general priesthood, I'd say that Luther can't have just read the history of the Church and decided that any believer could offer absolution! I mean, this is not what happened in the ancient Church!

ken, are you seeing that things are not like what you described?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I never mentioned Luther, I was talking about millions of people.

You said that serious reading of history would lead people to recognise that the Greeks were right and the Latins wrong. But loads of people have not found that. There must be some other reason to choose Orthodoxy?

FWIW in our Protestant church the priest does pronounce abosolution. And the rest of us aren't allowed to.

My question to Andreas is simply this: what should a Christian who is not a member of any church - a new convert - do? How does that person find out which church they should join?
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
This doesn't work like that.

You are seeing it from the individual's point of view; I'm seeing it with God as the centre of things.

That seeker, if he has been called by God to the Church, then he will eventually find the apostolic faith and will bring forth fruit.

The question is whether he has been called by God to the Church or not.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
So all those faithful christians who are not in communion with Constantinople have not been called by God to His church? So what are they? -- pagans in disguise; damned because God didn't want them or love them enough to call them; or so irretrievably misguided that they have rejected God's call, and so damned again?

You might want to unpack that, Andreas. Otherwise what you are saying is [inappropriate comment for Purgatory] and highly insulting.

And if you can't see why this attitude is offensive, then I despair of any possibility that you might ever understand what anyone is saying who does not already agree with you.

John
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Oh dear.

John, you are right to be angry, and I apologize.

However, I do not change what I said, and I will explain why.

All these things you wrote, I disagree with them all. I do not believe that one that is not a member of the Church is less loved by God than one that is a member of the Church. I also don't believe that one that does not belong to the Church is damned.

I believe that different people have different callings. I believe that the Church has meaning only for those that have been called to Her and give forth fruit. If one does not give forth fruit, then I can't see why this man should stay in the Church.

Take the antiquity for example. Where the non-Jews damned? Or less loved than the Jews?

Didn't God say that He is the one behind the exodus of many ancient peoples?

So, God loves all people, and He will judge everyone according to their works. This has nothing to do with being a member of the Church though.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreus1984:
Father Gregory said that we could recognise Rome's primacy. He didn't say anything about that primacy being in connection with the Petrine primacy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreus 1984:
ken, in the undivided Church, the priests could give absolution to the faithful for their sins. This is a fact. Do Protestants having read about Church history accept that the priests can give absolution?

---

Can a priest give absolution? Or can he pronounce God's absolution when he is satisfied that the sinner has repented? One of Luther's 95 theses that he nailed to the door of Wittenburg Church was that Popes have no right to forgive sinners, only the right to pronounce God's forgiveness. I am highy confident that Pope Benedict XVI would readily concede that point.

So concepts such as forgiveness and absolution belong to God alone. He may engage helpers to help him along with this plan, but no-one may gainsay God's choice as to what to do with all of us.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
My goodness, this has become another andreas1984 against the Western church thread. andreas1984, cease and desist, or Satan will bite you in the butt. I swear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I did say BOTH sides. You have things about which you are as equally intransigent as ourselves. This isn't a competition as to who can be the least or the most intransigent. Progress is made by a genuine desire on both sides to seek God's will and apply oneself to the difficult task of convergence around that will and that truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
In the case of general priesthood, I'd say that Luther can't have just read the history of the Church and decided that any believer could offer absolution!

---

quote:

---

Many people have studied Church history and not done so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Oh, and by the way andreas, the Holy Spirit has not been on holiday in Rome - Rome is where he lives.

---

I know you won't believe me on this one andreas, so I thought I would provide proof. Here is photographic evidence that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Holy Father.....

Now if only those silly captions weren't there to give the game away!
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What both Rome and Orthodoxy don't need right now is yet another "false union" that could set the clock back for another few hundred years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Have you seen this?"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism Compared" by Fr. Gregory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Have you seen this?

"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism Compared" by Fr. Gregory

---

If only one could be both RC and Orthodox ! It tears my heart apart!

After reading your beautiful writting (no sarcasm! this is the best thing I have read by you to date), the only conclusion I came to was how beautiful RC and Orthodox are and what a shame about the Schism & other minor ( ) historical details.

It was very insightful about the Orthodox matters and I found your humility stirring. Thank you very much sharing it.

[ 23. February 2006, 02:42: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear IngoB

This is NOT false modesty I assure you but I don't have the theological expertise to harmonise. I would probably end up trading things that couldn't be traded or stitching things together that had too many rough edges. Someone like Olivier Clement ("You are Peter") is much better equipped to do that.

[ 23. February 2006, 06:48: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
re PaulTH*: The fact that the Romans claim that their primacy stems from Peter, does not mean that we actually accept that! As far as I am concerned, there are historical reasons for the primacy of Rome, i.e. it was the capital city of the Roman Empire. This is the way I see things, with Constantinople being second and equal to Rome because it was the New Rome.

The Orthodox understanding of the primacy is for one to give the speech to those that want to talk in a council. This is why the primacy after the schism has been transfered to Constantinople. If the primacy was linked with Peter, then Constantinople could not be first in Orthodoxy.

Remember that Pope Gregory, upon taking his See in Rome, was taught (I cannot find a better word) by the Patriarch of Alexandria that there is one Petrine See in three Patriarchates, and Peter's primacy rests in the three acting harmoniously; not in Rome. Pope Gregory accepted what his brother of Alexandria told him. He wouldn't have done that if the petrine primacy rests in Rome alone.

re absolution: I am not debating the issue; I'm saying that these people who either reject absolution or apply it to general priesthood have not done so because of the Church history like Greyface and ken implied, but, like fr. Gregory said because they were picking in their reading of that history and chose what they wanted. In one word: they have already formed their opinions and seeked through the history for support, not in order to be taught.

re West: I have read the Pope saying that the Roman Church can get benefited to a great extent by the Eastern tradition. I concur. I just don't see how the Eastern Church can get benefited from the Roman Church. In fact, I think that She cannot get benefited, because she lacks nothing the Roman Church has. (Arguably, She lacks something the Western civilization has, but not something the Roman Church has by virtue of her being the Roman Church, i.e. the so-called later developments are not only unecessary, but also contrary to the eastern tradition.)

[ 23. February 2006, 07:34: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 

---

Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
...
Have you seen this?
"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism Compared" by Fr. Gregory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:

There is also a comparative page for Anglo Catholicism written by myself and one in preparation (by Fr. Michael Harper who has a charismatic evbangelical background before Orthodoxy) on Evangelicalism and Orthodoxy.

---

Is this any different, Father G, to Gordon's resource for introducing RCs to evangelicalism, currently being debated so hotly on that other thread?

[ 23. February 2006, 08:55: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Andreas

I would be a lot more generous about what we could learn from Rome and the west generally. These are a few items ...

(1) It seems to me that the west generally, notwithstanding penal substitutionary atonement, take the human aspect of the Passion much more to heart than we do and that's something we need to correct. There is a danger of docetism in our handling of the suffering of Christ.

(2) The west and Rome in particular is much more committed to mission than we are. There are some outstanding examples of Orthodox evangelisation as this article of mine makes clear ...

Orthopdox Christian Mission

... but the Greeks (in particular) spent so long in Ottoman incarceration that, in my experience in the UK, they find the whole mission thing quite alien to their thinking. (Happily that is why I am with Antioch who have no such qualms or limitations).

(3) There is a flaw in our ecclesiology manifest after the fall of Byzantium and the degrading of East Roman Christianity to "Hellenism," and that concerns our global unity. I don't need to remind you or anyone else of the stupidity of our "turf wars" and the unedifying spectacle in recent times of the spats between Constantinople and Moscow over Estonia and the Ukraine and on the domestic front between Constantinople and Athens over the "shared" territories. Rome can teach us a thing or two about unity (without signing up to papal infallibility!).

There, I have probably shocked enough Orthodox for the time being.

(I have not read the Gordon thread Leprechaun. I see Christian traditions as a set of Venn diagrams, overlaps and exclusivities.)

[ 23. February 2006, 09:10: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear father

The crucifixion is meaningful because God was crucified. If we see the crucifixion from a human aspect, it is not something outstanding. Many people have been crucified before, many innocent people have been slaughtered. I do not understand your point. The entire tradition of the desert is built in the fact that God emptied Himself and the implications this fact has. If God empties Himself, if God gets subject to time and space and death, then we can meet with Him.

I don't understand what you are saying...

re Unity: IMHO it's not a matter of ecclesiology, but a matter of humans that want to excercise power. For example, when the Patriarch of Moschow asked to be the president of a council in the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Archbishop of Athens rebuked him, saying that when the Patriarch of Constantinople is present, nobody else presides. The Patriarch of Moscow understood his mistake and did not insist in his demand.

I say we let you preside. That way the Patriarch of Moscow will not enter into temptation

Now, on what you said about Athens... The Patriarch is to be acknowledges by the so-called new countries. When the Archbishop of Athens went there, (according to what the bishop of Pireus, the spiritual father of the Archbishop of Athens, said privately to the Patriarch) a deacon made a mistake and named the Archbishop first. This led to a misunderstanding. The bishop of Pireus went to the Phanar to solve the misunderstanding; he promised that the Archbishop would do all the things the Patriarch asked him, and he said that it was a non-issue.

However, because metropolitan John intervened, things were not solved. The rest is history, but the result is that Greece obeyed to the order of the Church.

It's more about Church politics than ecclesiology. If they cannot understand that the Church is not offended when they have less power than they think it is proper for them, then problems arise.

I think that the Eastern Church has a great disadvantage, because She has not followed the Western stressing out the individual. We didn't do something similar (I'm not saying we should have done the same thing!), therefore we were surpassed by history. But that's not what you are talking about, right?
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I agree, but can they be accepting what they read or filtering out the unacceptable bits. The Non Jurors for example were NEARLY convinced that Orthodoxy was the RealThing™ but, whoops! .... they couldn't accept the veneration of the holy icons ... and this despite their knowledge of the Iconoclast controversy and the outcome of the 7th Ecumenical Council. So, I can only conclude that many people "pick and choose" from history from their own ideological base.

---

I agree, but I do think that we all do this and being human and limited, it isn't possible to be wholly objective.

Seeking the truth informs and moulds our biases but without a conclusive and objective ability to identify the Church (or the truest manifestation thereof), the Catholics can say the same thing about the Orthodox.

So in these days of massively overlapping jurisdictions we're basically stuffed in terms of submission to the Church, because we have to identify true teaching before we can see where we think the truth is taught. On the other hand as soon as that is seen, we have to get down to rational argument as the basis for discussion rather than two or more intransigent groups certain they have the whole truth on everything, which gives me hope.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Oh I could talk about a lot more, including that Andreas ... and "explaining away" the spats as "politics" not "ecclesiology" is fatuous nonsense. The politics multiply when the ecclesiology is flawed. Our ecclesiology at the moment is not Orthodox (phyletism), our commitment to mission is not Orthodox, our narrowmindedness is not Orthodox. It's no use making excuses and "dressing it up" ... these are indeed problems that we have. All these things can be corrected but to say that we can't learn from the strengths of others (including Rome) is an atrocious and dangerous sentiment.

As for the suffering and death of Christ it is fine to say "I have been crucified with Christ ..." and to construct a transformative asceticism from that but the humanity of Christ IS an operative factor in our salvation no less so in any aspect of his life or death as a human as well as God. Having been raised in the west where this aspect is emphasised perhaps I feel it more than you do.

Yes, folks, Orthodox do disagree!

[ 23. February 2006, 09:37: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Lord!

Father, you have to keep in mind that I live in Greece, BEFORE making a post that addresses things I said. I didn't have a clue what you were saying on ecclesiology, because I had in mind the ecclesia in Greece. You are talking about the ecclesia in England!

Now you make sense!

I agree with you.

Be more careful next time though, because we might be arguing for many pages, simply because we don't have the same things in mind.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Greyface

I basically agree but where it is clear from Church history that iconoclasm is so obviously and blatantly wrong (and settled as an issue) to demur on that is at best idiosyncratic and at worst, perverse.

If we ALL really made an extra strong effort to look at history without prejudice AND to ACT on that exploration ... we would all find ourselves radically changed.

What blocks this IMHO is ignorance and inertia and a misguided, overinflated sense of loyalty to "how things are done here and now in our tribe."
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
No, Andreas ... I am talking about weaknesses in Orthodox ecclesiology EVERYWHERE. (I am going out soon so you had better be quick!). Anyway, let's get back to Rome, (easy IngoB! ); I don't want to hijack this thread with my loyal dissent.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Is there phyletism in the dioceses of Greece? Is there phyletism in the dioceses of Russia? I don't understand what you are saying...

[ 23. February 2006, 09:49: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Are Old Calendarists in Greece Orthodox or not? What about ROCA in Russia? Now, I know these are schisms or pseudo-schisms and not phyletistic situations but my point about ecclesiological flaws is wider than phyletism in the west anyway. It concerns a certain over emphasis of Orthodoxy with national culture and identity and that certainly concerns Greece and Russia as well as the "west." Rome manages to respect local culture without becoming in bondage to it. We could indeed learn from that. (As I said, let's not derail the thread).
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Schismatics are not Orthodox. If they were, then we would be sinning for not being in communion with them. There is no church outside the communion of the faithful.

You are talking about Old Calendarists in Greece. Haven't you heard that there are groups that come from the Roman Church that do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff and the Curia, because they don't agree e.g. with the new liturgy in use? Are these people Roman Catholics or not?

By what you are saying, the situation in the Roman Church would be different. It's not though.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
You have not answered my substantive point about ethnocentric isolation.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I don't understand what you are saying. The Church of Greece is supposed to cater for the Orthodox people in Greece. The same applies for the Church of Russia.

The fact that there is no Church of England, does not mean that there is enthocentrism in Greece.

I don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps you could describe what you mean in greater detail.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
There is a tendency amongst the Orthodox to regard their own Orthodoxy (Greek, Russian etc.,) as the 5 star version. This is based not on Christianity more often than not but on national and cultural pride. It is what hinders inter-Orthodox coperation in the west and transnationally and I guess is the real reason we all shy away from that oh-so-necessary Ecumenical Council that we have been "preparing for" for generations.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Dear andreus1984

So called Catholics who don't acknowledge the Pope or the Curia, the Sedevacantits can't possibly be Roman Catholics. They're in approximatey the same position as Henry VIII when he removed all vestiges of Roman authority from his kingdom. But some of those groups opposed to modern liturgy, the best known being the Society of St Pious X are in a bit of a grey area.

When Archbishop Lefebre ordianed a number of bishops in 1988 without the authority of the Church, Pope JPII threatened him and the entire SSPX with excommunication, but never formally proceded with it. Since Pope Benedict XVI has been in office he has met with leaders of the SSPX in an attempt to bring them back on board. He is, after all, a supporter of traditional liturgy himself. The result has been a full admission by Rome that the SSPX has never been in formal schism and that Catholics in good standing aren't barred from involvement with the Society.

Are you suggesting that ROCOR is in formal schism from Orthodoxy?
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Typo alert!! I meant Sedevacantists.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It is what hinders inter-Orthodox coperation in the west and transnationally

---

Again, you are talking about what happens in England. I do not know what the situation is like there, but judging from what I can see here, there is no such hindrance in co-operation.

What you describe is certainly wrong, and not Orthodox at all. But it can be resolved by applying the Orthodox practices, instead of adopting non-Orthodox (i.e. Roman) practices.

You could make a point by saying that the Byzantines viewed the entire world as if its centre were them.

"Ecumenical council": I have heard about no such thing. I have heard about a Pan-Orthodox meeting, but this is hindered because some put politics above theology.

It's like the cardinals leaking their journals from the papal election. They think that the vows they took do not apply to them. Putting themselves above Church order is something bad.

PaulTH*

I spoke mostly about the Old calendarists in Greece. They are not in communion with the rest of the church.

What's the situation with ROCOR? I don't know. (I have heard some theories by fr. Gregory and others here on the Ship that communion with one that is in communion with another makes the first in communion with the last etc, but this a) makes no sense at all, b) is not historically consistent, c) oversees the fact that the link between the rest of the Church and a group outside Her, may be doing so for political reasons, and not for theological ones).
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Andreas --

Following on from that last post, perhaps you need to recognize that for most of the people you are talking to, the way the Orthodox church manifests itself in Greece is utterly unrelated to their experience of the church, the orthodox church or anything else.

For example, in North America generally, there are several different orthodox jurisdictions covering the same territory, not a single orthodox jurisdiction. "Battling bishops" is the best way of expressing the fact that the whole idea of geographic jurisdiction is dead in orthodoxy -- it only lives inside separate orthodox groupings (I won't call them denominations, though as that word is used in western theology, I could justiy it, I think). There is no witness to unity or common theology.

In the city in which I grew up, there were three (or four?) competing orthodox bishops, each representing a different racial grouping within Orthodoxy. Since then an Antiochene has arrived as well, but at least that version of Orthodoxy isn't racially denominated. (And comments that follow do not apply to it.)

When I say no witness to unity, and refer to racial grouping, what I mean is that the Greek Orthodox parishes were under the authority of a bishop seen as a delegate of the church in Greece, attended exclusively by those whose families came from Greece -- and Greek was the lnaugage of worship. Russians and Ukrainians worshipped each in their own parishes, subject to their own bishops who were seen as representative of the church in Russian and the Ukraine respectively. Never did anyone from one group worship in a church of one of the others. In one case, a Russian and a Greek cathedral sat on two corners of the same intersection, and did not speak to each other. Frankly, they were far more likely to speak to their Roman or Anglican or Presbyterian or Baptist brothers than to each other. In 2006, worship continues to be in the inherited language, which most no longer speak 3-4 generations along. From outside -- and with no attempt to assess the religious beliefs of those who attend services -- the parishes attract far fewer worshippers than they do people anxious to participate in social and education and other activities that will preserve cultural and ethnic heritage. (And I do recognize that to a lesser extent, the same is true in Canada for some presbyterians (Scottish) and some Anglicans (English).)

Now you can rightly say that those are aberrations and not what orthodoxy is in Greece. But it is what the experience of orthodoxy is for many in NOrth American and other places.

So basing your arguments on how you experience orthodoxy in Greece is not going to work in debate here, unless you recognise, acknowledge and take account of the fact that the way it is in Greece is not the way it is in other places. (I'd bet that the Greek experience of orthodoxy is not typical or normative of orthodoxy as a whole, just as the Antiochene version is not -- and as the Church of England (and my own Anglican church of Canada for that matter) is neither typical nor normative of Anglicanism.)

I'll go further. I think much of the reaction you have drawn on several threads over several months turns out to be because you argue exclusively from a base of knowledge and experience that almost no-one else knows or shares -- not "orthodoxy", but "orthodoxy as expressed and experienced in Greece." That's not a barrier to reasoned discussion, but it is a barrier to mutual understanding of what people are actually saying and meaning.

John
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'd go along with much of that John but not quite as strongly for here in the UK things are not quite as bad as that. We have flourishing inter-Orthodox societies and clergy and people often swap. We have a pan-Orthodox theological Institute in Cambridge and the hierarchs are on very good working terms with each other.

What frustrates me here though is the inability of some "cradle" Orthodox to see beyond the culture and mores of the mother country ... to which most of them never will return. The worst pathology of this is a certain kind of melancholic religion of regret.

Anyway this is about Rome and the papacy!
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
John, I see your point. What I was trying to say is that this is what happens now, after the Great Schism, and it's not a typical situation for Orthodoxy before the Schism. So, the Orthodox ecclesiology as expressed before the Schism (imo) has none of the problems fr. Gregory mentioned. This is why I told him that it's not the traditional ecclesiology per se, but the way we operate now in the West. But he seemed to disagree with that and said that it's about ecclesiology.

I don't know about him, but when I read that word I took it to mean one bishop per area, local councils every a specific period of time, and larger councils when necessary.

For example, and let me bring the discussion back to the primacy, I think it's reasonable for one Patriarchate of America, with the bishop of New York as the Patriarch and first among equals in a united church. Any thoughts?
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I admire the way in which some Orthodox priests such as Fr Gregory and Fr Michael Harper in London are working so hard to introduce a local, in our case English, element into Orthodoxy. But they are both English converts to Orthodoxy. I think the Orthodox Church in general is still perceived in the West as being an expatriate church for its various communities, Greek, Russian etc. Not that anyone minds expat communities setting up their own churches, but they are hardly welcoming to outsiders.

There's a Greek Orthodox Church a couple of miles from where I live and once I was driving past and saw it open, so I stopped to look inside. The priest gave me a very starnge look and asked me what I wanted!! This doesn't happen in any other churches I go in and they are numerous. My own view is that Orthodoxy has so much to offer to the West, spiritually, theologically and litugically, and a time honoured consistency lacking in Western Christianity, that it will undoubtedly grow in the future.

While I don'y have any problem with people worshipping in Greek, Russian or Old Slavonic if that's what they want to do, what's the point when it isn't the first language of most of the worshippers? And this isn't comparble to the old use of Latin in the Catholic Church which had the benefit of offering consistence from Poland to Peru. I think Orthodoxy in the West will only begin to grow substantially when it manages to shake off that image.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think Orthodoxy in the West will only begin to grow substantially when it manages to shake off that image.

---

Indeed. We have a great number of people (and our Archbishop) pushing it in our Archdiocese, but old habits can die hard.

God help us.


Perhaps if the Pope told us to conduct services in English...
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Fr Gregory, I am enjoying reading your stuff!

I have a great love and hunger for the insights provided by the "Eastern lung" of the One Church. These provide a profound challenge to us in the West. The problem we have is we have lost the means of listening to each other.

One of the features of Orthodoxy which frightens me is the ethno-centric national nature of Orthodoxy. Let's be honest: there is no Orthodox Church - there are a lot of national Churches.

This had its worst manifestation in my experience in Johannesburg in the 1980s. Fr (Gary) Chrysostom Frank was due to be ordained. He is not Greek. During the actual ordination service there was a near riot as large sections of the congregation erupted to signify their displeasure that the Archbishop should be ordaining a non-Greek. It was scandalous. Fr Frank is a fine scholar and there is an article by him here which beautifully outlines an Orthodox struggle over the question of unity. It is worth reading. But I ought to add that ultimately Fr Frank left the Orthodox Church of Greece to become a Byzantine Rite Catholic in 1996. (The article pre-dates his swimming the Tiber from the Bosphorous).
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes, Triple Tiara ... I heard that scandalous story as well. I think if I was there I would have to have been restrained!

So, let's check this out ...

(1) We'll have the papacy but a bit more "arms length" in terms of jurisdiction please.
(2) You can have icons, theiosis, a bit of mystery back in the Mass etc. etc.
(3) We'll have your unity / identity as Catholics ... oh and a large dollop of your organisational skills please!
(4) You can have all that food we bring to the Eucharist and consume.

It's quite simple really. It just needs the will.

(Where there's a will ....

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

there's a row!

[ 23. February 2006, 21:44: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Dear Fr Gregory

I wish you were in charge!!!
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
First, Fr Gregory - respect. It's refreshing to hear you talk so openly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Anyway this is about Rome and the papacy!

---

I think it is, actually. Many of the mentioned problems would disappear, not overnight but in due course, if Orthodoxy had a "transcendent center" in St Peter again. The real interesting question is for me whether the full benefits for Orthodoxy could indeed be realized with a really "loose" intepretation of Petrine primacy. It seems to me that the West is in somewhat better shape to cope with that, whereas the East could do with a serious helping of ecclesiastical "top-down" discipline for quite a while. Basically, you would have to drag the folks in Johannesburg, and for that matter andreas1984, kicking and screaming into the global village of mixed ethnicity that the world has become or is rapidly becoming. I'm wondering if you don't need Roman "centralist legalism" for at least a couple of decades to hold Orthodoxy together admitst the centrifugal forces of your re-union in a more modern setting.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
For Fr Gregory:

(deep seductive voice .....) Hi Honey Wanna come over to my place and preach sometime?
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Erm, well when I have to choose between you and Miss Whiplash in Oz it's a no brainer!

(Fr. Gregory, not relishing top-down 'discipine.')

[ 23. February 2006, 22:29: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
All this agreement! So Lent will be running a week late this year, Romans?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Erm, well when I have to choose between you and Miss Whiplash in Oz it's a no brainer!

---

You've received the invite from our Parish Ladies' Auxiliary then.



Ian,
who has no doubt as to who runs our parish.
[Thanks be to God though. They keep us going.]

[ 23. February 2006, 22:46: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
What the 'eck's a "Parish Ladies Auxiliary"?
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Don't ask, Father.


The Ladies Group. Heaven knows where the term "auxiliary" came from.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
It wasn't accepted by the Eastern Church at large.

---

I have read the other Orthodox Shipmates here saying that a council is ratified by the people. If the people does not accept it, then it's not valid.

I, on the other hand, think that a council that has been performed properly (according to the order of the Church) is valid, no matter what others might say. This is what I have been taught.

Today, while reading the canons of the third ecumenical council, I found this: "If any layman shall resist the Synod, let him be excommunicated. But if it be a cleric let him be discharged." (epitome of canon 6)

I think that this supports the view I expressed. The council of Florence was not a council because the appropriate procedures were not followed.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Given that it involved a large number of Roman Catholics, would it have been an EC if the procedures had been followed, or is one of your procedures that Roman Catholics aren't involved?

I ask because I recall you said earlier that RCs and Protestants wouldn't be involved in a contemporary Ecumenical Council.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Hold on. I think that it started as a meeting, and then, after an agreement was reached, they called it "ecumenical".

From the Orthodox point of view, an ecumenical council is one done by the Orthodox Church. So, an ecumenical council cannot have as members the Roman Catholics or Protestants.

My point was that during that council, the members were not called according to the order, they did not discuss things according to the order, the emperor took the place of the Patriarch despite the order of the Church, the members of the meeting were not sent to Italy for an ecumenical council etc etc
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
So if all that had been done and the Roman Catholics still took part, would it have been an Ecumenical Council or not?
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If all have been done, and the Roman Catholics did not take any part whatsoever, and an agreement was reached, then, the council could make reunion and THEN extend the council so that Roman Catholics could take part in it. Unless someone is in union with the Orthodox Church, one cannot take part (as a member I mean) in an ecumenical council.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Thanks for the clarification. So the fact that the West took part in the Council is sufficient to make it lack authority in your eyes.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
No. Like I said, the West did not take part in that council before an agreement has been reached.

We didn't go there and discuss with the Romans on equal terms and then all (Orthodox + Romans) voted and a union was reached.

We went there, we discussed with ourselves, we heard the Romans, we discussed with ourselves, we agreed on union, then we extended the council and the RC took part in it as equals and the union was affirmed.

"we": a figure of speech. St. Mark was kept in prison in his own room, bishops were bribed, bishops were threatened that they would not live Italy alive, the Patriarch died and the Emperor took over, the bishops were not given authority when the left Greece to go to Italy for an ecumenical council, etc etc
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
So hypothetically, if the other conditions had been met then the union would have been valid once it was affirmed?
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If all things were done properly, then it would have been a true union.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The historical reality is that the people did resist when the union was brought back to Constantinople.

You have a very bureaucratic notion of the validity of an Ecumenical Council Andreas.

Oh dear, we haven't got an Emperor to convene one. What do we do now?
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
An ecumenical council has no validity unless its decisions are ratified and sealed by the Bishop of Rome. That is another one of those ancient rules.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
TT, just like the Creed which was accepted in the West during the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and after a theology of filioque has been developed in the West?

Father Gregory, truth is not to be judged by majorities. Was monothelitism Orthodox just because the only opponents of that heresy were Maximos and a few friends of his?

You also spoke about the emperor. I do not like people laughing at what I said. This is why I am asking you this: are you saying that according to the canons an emperor is needed to call a council? Because I said that a council is valid irrespectively of what the laity think, and I showed you a canon that says so. Are you saying that the people at the third ecumenical council didn't know what you present as true?
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I am saying that you are getting tied up in rules, some of which might not be remotely relevant now. What has happened in the past has happened and the Holy Spirit has spoken. I am talking about "what next?" I have no problem with the Bishop of Rome convening a future (genuinely) ecumenical council ... but that of course will be when he's fully Orthodox again and we're fully Catholic ... that is when we've kissed and made up.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If we do not judge a council by whether the rules have been followed or not, then it seems to me that we are stuck with a "the winner takes it all" reading of the history. How can you know if a council is driven by the Holy Spirit or not? What would you do if you were in Maximos's times and the Patriarch (along with the rest of the church except for Maximos) told you that they made a council and monothelitism was the Orthodox teaching, while Maximos told you that the order of the Church has not been followed, so it was not a real council after all.

With whom would you be in communion? Maximos and a couple of his friends? Or the united church?
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Of course you need rules Andreas but I am talking about "NOW" not about then. The rule about being convened by the Emperor has to change. The rules have to evolve in the light of changed circumstances.

I do, nonetheless, feel that you overemphasise the rules sometimes as if God is sitting up there with his clipboard ticking a list ... "Oh dear. They forgot that rule. I can't inspire that one."
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
There is no rule that a council has toi be convened by an emperor.

The rules for a council to be valid, they are actually common sense. We can't change common sense, can we?

re God sitting: On the contrary, I am saying that God is imparting His Grace to whoever He wants, be it the two Buddhists getting married you mentioned, or me having sex with my girlfriend.

And the opposite: God takes His grace from whoever He wants, be it either the eucharist Arios offered, or the absolution Pyrrhos gave.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 

quote:

---

re God sitting: On the contrary, I am saying that God is imparting His Grace to whoever He wants, be it the two Buddhists getting married you mentioned, or me having sex with my girlfriend.

---

quote:

---

... I did find a joint declaration between the RCC and the OC, which read*: "For Christians of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches marriage is a sacrament." I think that this is contrary to what fr. Gregory said about two kinds of marriage.

---

quote:

---

andreas1984 wrote:
The rules for a council to be valid, they are actually common sense.

---

quote:

---

We can't change common sense, can we?

---

At least one of those two must be false.


If it were not so, everyone would agree on this issue.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
I really am getting lost as to what discussion I am in and where, because they are all flowing into each other. You lot there in the East - can we codify and synthesise please? One topic one thread. No cross pollination.

(This is a Roman attempt to bring some order to Orthodoxy )


(ETA: cross-posted with Fr Gregory. Damn!)

[ 24. February 2006, 13:20: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Before we uncross the threads, let me say that you are interpreting a passage of the scripture in a certain way, and that it is not wise to base one's understanding of the world from one sriptural passage.

You are an Orthodox priest. When a man or a woman that is gay comes to you, what do you do? Do you tell them that they were created heterosexual, and that God's plan is for man and woman to become one flesh? What's your understanding?

ken: the way councils get done, common sense is what prevails. For example, all sides must be heard. This is pretty common sense I reckon.

The bishops that are going to vote, have to be selected by a procedure. Not everybody can attend and vote in a council. Again, common sense.

The fact that there is a hierarchy in the Church, and that this hierarchy should be respected when a council is to get started, it's common sense.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0