Posted on 06/20/2008 4:48:31 AM PDT by tcg
Reports are circulating, in circles which are intensely attuned to the continued warming of relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, of a statement and proposal allegedly made by Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.
If they are confirmed, it may signal a major move toward communion between Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox Brethren.It may also open the path to dialogue on communion between the Churches even wider.
The Religious Information Service of the Ukraine, associated with the Ukranian Catholic University, was cited as one source for the articles. Another was a German Ecumenical Journal named after the great Bishops Cyril and Methodius.
Both of these sources allege that the Orthodox Patriarch made an unusual gesture toward Eastern Catholic Churches which are in union with Rome, proposing that the members of those Churches somehow “return to Orthodoxy without breaking unity with Rome”...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
An interesting discussion.
As a son of an Irish Catholic father and Greek Orthodox mother I can relate to some of the differences in the two major Christian faiths. Since there was no Orthodox Church anywhere near my small hometown I was raised a Catholic. My Mother however retained her original faith even while encumbered by the lack of a place of worship nearby. I had a Greek uncle who lived in the same town who did convert to the Catholic faith eventually. In my younger years when I spent a summer with my grandmother in Florida I did on occasion attend Greek Orthodox services with her and her husband.
Theologoumenna is a religious opinion that is not considered heresy. Individual Fathers engaged in such but no one accepted them as the alpha and omega of Church doctrine. Take, for example, the teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo. When the East finally learned of his work in the 14th century, the Church rejected most of his teachings, but not all. In fact, he is also an Orthodox Saint, as are many Roman Popes.
Some Fathers at one point or another in their theological life strayed into heresy, but rejected their teaching before they were condemned. St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the three Cappadocian giants for both the East and the West, taught for a time being universal salvation under the influence of his mentor Origen. Later, St. Gregory rejected this error.
Would it be correct to say from the EO p.o.v. that it is acceptable to believe in a theologoumenna as long as one does not hold it as a dogma?
Theologoumenna is not dogma. Dogma is something we all have to believe without exception. The Church dogma, for example is that God is Triune, that the Father is source of everything and all, including the divinity, that the Son is the only-begotten before all ages and that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, that all Three are one in essence (divine), one God; we profess the monarchy of the Father, and we profess three Hypostases in the economy of our salvation as three distinct persons of one and the same God. We profess that Mary was the Birthgiver of God, the Mother of God our Lord Jesus Christ; that Christ is eternal Word Incarnate, fully divine and fully human, with two natures and two wills in one Person, etc.
These are Church dogmas we must believe in order to be members of the one Holy Carholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone who does not profess that (and the rest) is not catholic, and his faith is not orthodox.
The Orthodox also believe in the intermediate state of the souls, between the particular and the final judgment (the nature of that judgment doesn't change). We hold memorials (panikhidas, parastas, pomens, etc.) for the souls of the departed. We believe our prayers and services help the state of the souls who died in less than full repentance. Obviously some cleansing is taking place and the sinful souls are shamed before God but can do nothing to ease their suffering, save for our memorials.
Where we differ with the Latins is the nature of that suffering. It is not God who is causing the suffering nor is there "real" fire involved in "roasting" the souls of the departed to God's content. These are theological issues we must discuss and find concordance in. We believe we can do that by looking at what the Church as a whole professed as an undivided Church.
We reject Purgatory because the East was never made aware of it, nor was it known to the Church in the East, and because it is contrary to the Orthodox teaching that God is not the cause of our suffering.
“(It doesn’t help that there is an Eastern Pope of course i.e. Shenouda III)”
He’s A very nice and very holy man, too!
“As a son of an Irish Catholic father and Greek Orthodox mother....”
The PERFECT combo! :)
“I’m counting on some of the Orthodox to clarify the meaning of this.”
Don’t expect to hear we understand this, NYer. Its a bizarre statement to the extent that those churches, like yours, accept various of the modern Latin dogmas....Of course, we all know what goes on in Lebanon, theological niceties to the contrary notwithstanding!
Baptiso means to dunk (submerse) repeatedly resulting in a permanent change, as in pickling cucumbers. Contrast that with the word bapto which means to dunk.
The idea is to be "inside" the water and to accomplish this repeatedly, specifically three times (trinitarian formula ), resulting in a permanent change.
It is incorrect to say that the Church rejected most of St. Augustine's teachings when it was only the Eastern part of the Church that did so. His teaching, with exceptions, has always been held in the West. The Eastern bishops do not speak for the entire Church.
The ecclesial operating system remains unchanged in the West, with all the bishops recognizing the universal jurisdiction of the pope as the successor of St. Peter, just as it was among the Holy Apostles.
I was referring to the Church in the East ("When the East finally learned of his work in the 14th century, the Church..."). It is clear that the Church in this case is limited only to the Church in the East, as the Church was no longer undivided at that time.
If there was any ambiguity, I never wanted to imply that the Church in the West followed in the East's foot steps on this matter.
We do not agree on what that jurisdiction means. That's why, in good faith, the East and the West currently discuss this. Catholic Catechism pretty much gives the pope absolute authority to do with or without the Synod of bishops. This was not how the undivided Church worked.
The idea that this jurisdiction is biblical was pressed by Pepe St. Leo I (Great), as the "ruler" of the Church. St. Peter was no ruler, nor did he lord over other Apostles. Nor did our Lord Jesus Christ give St. Peter any authority that is currently given to the Pope in the Catholic Catechism.
Today's papacy and the early Church papacy are not clearly and universally recognizable as one and the same. Your side will have to do a much better job at making its case more convincing. And don't cite to me individual Fathers, because their opinions were just that. The bishops at Chalcedon made it very clear that they gave the Pope the privileges and honor based on imperial dignity of the city of Rome and not one of them cited Matthew 16.
I have wondered that also.
This should be the focus of the discussions between the East and the West, not whether the pope has any jurisdiction in the first place. The Orthodox overstate their position when they deny that their is any inherent jurisdiction or that it is only a question of "honor". Their are two foci of authority in the Church, the pope and the college of bishops. This is clearly shown in the history of the early Church. That there should be tension between these two foci is not surprising, just as it was not surprising that there was tension in understanding the two natures of Christ. Remember that heresy is mostly based on trying to remove the tension between two competing truths, e.g., Jesus is God, Jesus is man. The orthodox, and true, position is that he is both. This may seem clear to us today but it was, as we all know, a cause of strife in the early Church. In a like manner, we should try to reconcile the two truths that the pope is a focus of authority and that the college of bishops is a focus of authority, without trying to pit one against the other.
The idea that this jurisdiction is biblical was pressed by Pepe St. Leo I (Great), as the "ruler" of the Church.
Actually, the idea of the pope as successor of St. Peter can be documented to go back at least to the time of Pope Stephen I. More importantly, this claim (clearly and repeatedly made even in church councils) was never denied, even by the Eastern bishops, before 1054.
kosta50:
One thinks that politics from the City of Constantinopile had someting to do with this. Canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicea state (source from Newadvent.org)
Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Now, I am no formally trained theologian but the Council of Nicea is giving a form of primacy to Alexandria and Antioch, that is already in place for the Church of Rome. Then, the Church of Jerusalem is given a primacy of honor. Without geting into the definition of Primacy with respect to Rome with respect to how it was exercised at that time, it seems clear that from the Council of Nicea, Rome had the primacy, or priority, followed by Alexandria and Antioch, or vice versa, then Jerusalem.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD in canon 28, which Rome has never accepted, did state that because ROme was a royal city, it should have certain privileges and Constantinopile, as the New Rome, should have the same privileges [These would be secular privileges} for as in church matters, Constantinopile would rank 2nd.
Now, I don’t think Rome had a problem with Constantinopile being granted a primacy, but a rank of 2nd, when Alexandria and Antioch were both Churches with direct connections to Apostles had a history much older and for that reason, Rome has never accepted Canon 28 from the Council of Chalcedon.
Regards
I don't know where you are getting "in the first place" as my statement doe snot question if the Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction, but what extent and nature of that jurisdiction is.
When I wrote "We do not agree on what that jurisdiction means" it is hardly a denial of its existence.
The Orthodox overstate their position when they deny that their is any inherent jurisdiction or that it is only a question of "honor".
And the Catholics certainly overstate it. I am sure you are familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states in paragraph 882
The undivided Church certainly never adhered or accepted such definitions.
St. Peter certainly never claimed it, and the Holy Apostles never acted towards him as if he were their ruler.
The issue of honor was never solitary. Ecclesial honor and privilege were granted by the bishops to those Bishops in Apostolic Sees (the Five Patriarchates), beginning with Rome based on the imperial majesty of the city, and that also inlcuded jurisdiction within the given patriarchate.
No Ecumenical Council argued for Papal supremacy based on Matthew 16.
Their are two foci of authority in the Church, the pope and the college of bishops. This is clearly shown in the history of the early Church. That there should be tension between these two foci is not surprising, just as it was not surprising that there was tension in understanding the two natures of Christ.
I find that to be a very poor example. The Holy Apostles were given the same keys in Matthew 18. There were no two foci of authority among them, although when St. Peter spoke, others listened. But he did not lord over any of his apostolic brethren.
Actually, the idea of the pope as successor of St. Peter can be documented to go back at least to the time of Pope Stephen I
That is in th latte part of the 3rd century. In other words, the earliest claim was some 230 years after the Pentecost.
This doesn't say anything about Rome being the first among them by rank. It simply establishes that Apostolic Sees deserve their jurisdictional authority by ancient custom and not by Matthew 16.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD in canon 28, which Rome has never accepted, did state that because ROme was a royal city, it should have certain privileges and Constantinople, as the New Rome, should have the same privileges [These would be secular privileges} for as in church matters, Constantinople would rank 2nd.
No, they are ecclesial privileges, as clearly stated from the Council's original text and nto from Newadvent which is not an official Catholic source but run by a single individual (and using 1914 sources).
The Councils specifically states in Canon xxviii
For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her;
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD in canon 28, which Rome has never accepted
This is historically inaccurate. The Council of Trullo (Canon xxxvi) renews it, to wit:
The Pope refused to recongize the Council (not just for renewing this canon), but the Catholic Church in Spain (xviii Council of Toledo) recognized it despite papal refusal.
Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council received general acknowledgment of the canon xxviii and the IV Laterna Council (Canon V) acknowledges Constantinople as being second to Rome.
You have also failed to cite the second and third canons of the Second Ecumenical Council which clearly establishes the nature and limits of the Apostolic jurisdiction:
And
You misunderstood, which Orthodox no longer follow the Canons as you have alleged?
It is a very serious allegation, after all.
When I wrote "We do not agree on what that jurisdiction means" it is hardly a denial of its existence.
My remarks were not directed at you but at the many Orthodox whom you must admit do in fact deny any and all universal jurisdiction to the popes. Indeed, I meant to praise your acknowledgment of some sort of jurisdiction of the popes, even if we disagree on its nature. I am sorry that I did not make this plane.
Ecclesial honor and privilege were granted by the bishops to those Bishops in Apostolic Sees (the Five Patriarchates), beginning with Rome based on the imperial majesty of the city, and that also inlcuded jurisdiction within the given patriarchate.
First, Canon 28 of Chalcedon was passed when the papal legates were absent and was never subsequently approved by Pope Leo, thus this act cannot be considered a legitimate act of the council itself but only the expression of a gathering of eastern bishops. Therefore its rational for the honor given to Rome cannot be considered normative nor binding.
Second, even if we were to admit the legitimacy of Canon 28, it was only addressing the dignity of patriarch, not the pope's unique office. Leo never questioned the patriarchal dignity of Antioch, Alexandria or Jerusalem. Yet he still maintained that he held a unique office as the successor of Peter. Thus Canon 28 has no bearing on the question of the papacy.
The council itself referred to the authority of the pope in its cover letter to Leo:
For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members…Here is a clear expression of the pope as the "head" of the Church to which its children are to show loyalty.For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement.
No Ecumenical Council argued for Papal supremacy based on Matthew 16.
The papal legates repeatedly addressed the councils in these terms, which addresses were included in the official acts of the councils without contradiction. Chalcedon addresses Pope Leo I with these words:
And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all.The Holy Apostles were given the same keys in Matthew 18
Although all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose, the keys were given to Peter alone.
The Orthodox are unevenly divided as to this issue. A vast majority hold that papal supremacy is limited to his patriarchy and not to other patriarchs, citing first four Councils.
A small minority hold that the Petrine office is set aside biblically but that doesn't mean the successor to St. Peter is the "ruler" of the Church, lording over other bishops, or having the kind of card blache authority specified in the Catholic Catechism.
I would say very few people who are Orthodox and who know something about the Church would deny any jurisdiction of the pope. We are not in non-communion with the pope because we deny his position in the Church, but because we do not agree with the theology that became normative in the Latin Church—in oher words, because we no longer recognize that both particualr Churches profess one and the same faith.
The communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople is simply and ordinal next step until this is resolved. If the Patriarch of Alexandria were next, then all the Orthodox would for a timebeing flock around him by order of precedence established by the Ecumenical Councils.
First, Canon 28 of Chalcedon was passed when the papal legates were absent and was never subsequently approved by Pope Leo, thus this act cannot be considered a legitimate act of the council itself but only the expression of a gathering of eastern bishops
Not entirely. Canon 28 simply repeats what was affirmed in previous three Councils.
Second, even if we were to admit the legitimacy of Canon 28, it was only addressing the dignity of patriarch, not the pope's unique office
Yes, which makes Leo's objection to it meaningless. But Pope St. Leo the Great did not object to it on the grounds that the Canon recognized the dignity of the Patriarch, but of his jurisdiction, which was also already established by previous Councils. So, in effect, it was Pope Leo I who made this issue a matter of papal office.
Although all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose, the keys were given to Peter alone
Matthew 16:19 clearly establishes that the "keys" are the authority to bind and loosen
First, Christ says he will give the keys, not that He gives the keys to Peter, and, second, the same "keys" are given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18
In John he then also gives to all his disciples the authority to forgive. At no time does He appoint St. Peter as His viccar, or as the supreme pontif, or as somone who has unlimited power in the Church.
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.