Posted on 11/14/2007 1:17:05 PM PST by Petrosius
VATICAN CITY - A joint commission working to heal the 1,000-year split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has agreed the Pope has primacy over all bishops but disagrees over just what that authority permits him to do.
The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue reached the agreement during talks last month in Ravenna, Italy, according to a document being published Thursday.
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches were united until the Great Schism of 1054, which was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the Pope.
Tensions remain strained over Orthodox accusations that the Vatican is seeking converts on traditionally Orthodox territories, particularly in eastern Europe - allegations that Rome denies.
Pope Benedict has said that uniting all Christians and healing the split is a "fundamental" priority of his pontificate.
The theological commission said it agreed in Ravenna that Rome occupied the "first place" in canonical order of the ancient seats of bishops - including Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
The commission said it agreed "that the bishop of Rome was therefore the 'protos' (first in ancient Greek) among the patriarchs."
"They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as 'protos,"' the commission's document said.
"While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations," the document continued.
It said the role of the bishop of Rome - the Pope - in communion with other churches must be studied in greater depth.
The Oct. 8-15 meeting in Ravenna was the second since the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue resumed in 2006 after breaking off for six years.
The meeting was marred at the start when delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church walked out over a territorial dispute with a rival Orthodox church.
The Russian Orthodox representative who walked out, Bishop Ilarion, posted the commission's final document on his website ahead of the official release Thursday. The Vatican confirmed its authenticity.
In his posting, Ilarion noted that the document was adopted without the presence of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate at the meeting, casting doubt over whether it could be considered to reflect Moscow's view.
"The Moscow Patriarchate will analyze the Ravenna document and present its conclusions in due course," the posting said.
Seems that Constantinople has been negotiating with Rome for something they may not have the Authority to try and agree to.
Repeal Trent!
Yeah, in your wildest dreams.
Following Orthodox ecclesialogy, each of the Eastern Churches is free to negotiate for themselves. No church has a veto over what another would wish to do.
Constantinople has the authority to make whatever agreement with Rome they want, for themselves. It would not be binding on any of the other Patriarchies. The problem Moscow had with this meeting that caused them to leave the negotiations had to do with Constantinople dabbling in a territory that Moscow claims is under Moscow's jurisdiction (I think it was Estonia) & a representative of the disputed territory was given a seat in the negotiations.
I don't think they want unity as much as they want us to submit.
Where there is no vision, the people perish
- Proverbs 29:18a
A dreamer!! LOL
We can discuss Trent with Lutherans and Anglicans (real Anglicans, real Lutherans).
But quite frankly, Trent needs to stay around for one group and one group alone—Calvinists. Take its anathemas away and there’ll be NO END to their insolence!!!! ;)
This is major, major news. It is one of my greatest hopes. Pray, folks, pray!
Anyone have a minute to ‘discuss Trent’ with a new Catholic? And what it has to do with Calvinists.... Thanks.
I was being somewhat facetious because I like to tweak our Calvinist friends.
I apologize if I’m covering ground you already know, but basically the Council of Trent was convened to respond to Protestantism. It looked at some of the doctrines that were taught by the Reformers and in some cases anathematized them (i.e. infallibly pronounced them to be heretical). At the same time it also called for reform in the Catholic Church.
It represents probably the most stinging rebuke to Protestant doctrine that has ever come out of Rome...and that’s why Reformed Christians find it particularly odious.
More on wikipedia with links to the actual documents here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
Did I cover everything? I’m not an expert in this area but I’d be happy to answer other questions from the Catholic POV...Alex can ably answer for the Reformers.
Your tweaking was taken in the spirit it was given, Claud - no hard feelings!
It represents probably the most stinging rebuke to Protestant doctrine that has ever come out of Rome
Trent was definitely a watershed event that divides Catholics and Reformed Protestants. For them to (re?)unite ecclesiastically, IMO either A) Protestants must reject and repent of the Five Solas, or B) The Magisterium must reject and repent of the Councils of Trent (or at very least the repent of the anathemas against the Solas).
IMAO "B" is not an insurmountable goal :P
Only two of them.
You can abandon the so-called “reformation” any time you like.
Well, you are an inveterate optimist, and I must say that for you guys to even consider potential reunion with "the Whore of Babylon" is considerable ecumenical progress!!!
For us to be wrong about the anathemas sorta puts infallibility down the loo, which means we were wrong about that too, which means well, we're just Arminians with funny hats!
Actually, I think the *real* sticking point is the sacraments. As you no doubt are aware from the last few documents out of Rome, we have to see valid sacraments and a vaild priesthood before we can use that word "church".
There could be some discussions on theology, but the guy who holds that the priest at St. Hubert's confects the Body and Blood of Christ is not going to shuffle on down to First Baptist to get crackers and grape juice. That's the divide unbridgeable in my opinion. And as proof, it seems to be the "high" Protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans where considerable movement is being made on the ecumenical front (they adopted portions of our liturgy, we are in discussions with various Anglican and even Lutheran bodies for potential reunion).
Interesting, thanks for the posts/ discussion. I didn’t know the details of that council.
Sola Scriptura
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.