Posted on 09/22/2009 3:41:15 PM PDT by NYer
The Catholic Church never left the orthodox faith which it has maintained from the beginning, which cannot be said about the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As for Fatima, it was more directed at Russian Communism whose errors have infected the whole world.
The conversion of Russia is about the error of atheist Communism.
Article quote:
“If so, this Sept. 18 meeting may have marked a turning point in relations between the “Third Rome” (Moscow) and the “First Rome” (Rome) — divided since 1054.”
Technically there has been no schism between the CC and the ROC.
You wrote:
“Cardinal Kasper might do well to remember his place and in the future avoid trying to tell Orthodox hierarchs what they should do.”
Oh, come on, Kolokotronis. It actually is a very good idea. The Eastern episcopal structure is unweildy to say the least when it comes to dealing with modern issues. A conference - even a non-binding one - might be a good idea.
“In the past that has created a less than favorable impression on The Church.”
If your “The Church” can’t handle a suggestion, then you have bigger issues to handle, right? :)
“Perhaps...when it returns to Orthodoxy which the present Pope may well be preparing the Latins for.”
Read Dominus iesus. Pope Benedict was instrumental in writing it. Clearly he believes we are orthodox AND Orthodoxy.
There's nothing "anti-Orthodox" about it; the "errors of Russia" it mentions are the errors of Communism, and "Russia will be converted" means that she will turn away (the literal meaning of "convert") from those errors.
“The Catholic Church never left the orthodox faith which it has maintained from the beginning, which cannot be said about the Patriarchate of Constantinople.”
We disagree at least as to the first part.
“As for Fatima, it was more directed at Russian Communism whose errors have infected the whole world.”
Oh, that’s why between her threats about not being able to restrain her Son’s wrath any more she spoke of the “conversion” of Russia to “her immaculate heart”?
“Oh, come on, Kolokotronis. It actually is a very good idea.”
Cardinal Kaspar is not well thought of; he is not trusted. He, of all the Vaticanistas, should not be making suggestions about how Orthodox bishops should be organizing themselves. His job is to make sure they are organized in submission to the Pope.
“The Eastern episcopal structure is unweildy to say the least when it comes to dealing with modern issues.”
It is? I’ll admit that a synodal system isn’t as “efficient” as an absolute monarchy, but we aren’t interested in that.
But Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople are not.
I respectfully disagree. Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. Patriarch Fouad Twal serves as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Patriarch Antonios Naguib tends the community at Alexandria.
“Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is Patriarch of Antioch and all the East.”
It is merely a title of honor. No one, save perhaps Cardinal Sfeir (and I doubt even he does), believes he is the Patriarch of Antioch. Even the Maronites claim the title only for Maronites and no one else. The fact is he is a cardinal, nothing more (and is due respect as such) and ALL the other particular churches view him as such.
Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is the legitimate successor of Patriarch Cyril VI who was duly elected in 1724. The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, is the successor of Sylvester of Antioch, a Greek monk who was imposed upon Antioch by the Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople who declared Ignatius’ election invalid. Of course we must ask by what right did the Patriarch of Constantinople have in interfering with the autocephalous church of Antioch?
“Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is the legitimate successor of Patriarch Cyril VI who was duly elected in 1724.”
Um, no. Pat. Cyril VI is the predecessor of the Melkite Patriarch, not the Maronite cardinal. Cyril VI was excommunicated by the EP for being a supporter of the Pope and his claims of universal jurisdiction. In this act the EP was supported by the rest of the Orthodox patriarchs and a new patriarch was appointed who was accepted by the Orthodox Patriarchs. You should try to get your patriarchs straight, P.
BTW, I had dinner just the other night with the niece of the great and holy +Maximos V, of blessed memory. She is a charming lady, who, like many in the late Patriarch’s family, has almost nothing good to say about Rome. Her son is one of my best friends.
My mistake, I was thinking of the Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham of Antioch. As for the excommunication by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence does he get the authority to excommunicate a validly elected patriarch of another church? How can a patriarch who canonically possesses only local authority over his own church have greater power than the pope who claims universal jurisdiction? Lacking such authority or jurisdiction over Antioch, Cyril VI remained the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, as do his successor, regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.
Cyril VI was removed by the EP in concert with the other Orthodox Patriarchs. A recent example of this was the removal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Ireneos I by the EP on behalf of and in concert with the other Patriarchs in, I think, 2005. It is the authority of the primus to act on behalf of the Patriarchs once they have decided what needs to be done. Of course if its the EP who needs to be removed, that can be done too (and has been).
“... regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.”
P, I meant to add that NOTHING can happen or continue on in Orthodoxy “regardless of the judgment” of the Patriarchs, or of the Laos tou Theou for that matter.
But whence did the patriarchs get this collective authority? Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops. Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.
But even by your own logic the validity of the excommunication by Constantinople fails. If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch. Thus at the time of Cyril VI's excommunication by Jeremias III of Constantinople only two (Constantinople and Jerusalem [and even the legitimacy of Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is questionable]) of the five historical patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) concurred in the act.
“Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops.”
Not so far as we are concerned. Indeed, it is just that opinion, among others, which prevents a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church.
“Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.”
Not so far as we are concerned. The Patriarchs can and have acted as a Synod with the EP as primus. The most recent example being the removal of Irenaeus.
“If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch.”
That doesn’t follow at all, so far as I can see. And By the excommunication of Cyril VI, Rome’s opinion, it being in schism so far as we were concerned, was of no consequence.
This all started with the comment that the Maronite cardinal is the “Patriarch of Antioch”. He is not the Patriarch of Antioch in any traditional sense of the word. He is not the successor of any member of the Pentarchy. He is the Patriarch of Antioch for the Maronites but only for the Maronites. I say this, btw, with the greatest respect and admiration for the personal qualities of +Nasrallah.
I concede this point. As I stated earlier, I had confused him with the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch who is the legitimate successor of the ancient Patriarch of Antioch, the imposition of Sylvester by the Patriarch of Constantinople being uncanonical.
“Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops.”
Not so far as we are concerned. Indeed, it is just that opinion, among others, which prevents a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church.
“Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.”
Not so far as we are concerned. The Patriarchs can and have acted as a Synod with the EP as primus. The most recent example being the removal of Irenaeus.
Please give an example of the united patriarchs acting as a senate for the universal church prior to the schism. This is a novelty completely against the canons that has no historical precedence in the undivided church.
“If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch.”
That doesn’t follow at all, so far as I can see.
Please explain how the judgment of the Laos tou Theou of the Greeks in rejecting an Ecumenical council has an authority that is not shared by the Laos tou Theou of the Egyptians.
Rome’s opinion, it being in schism so far as we were concerned…
Please show the act by which Rome allegedly went into schism from the universal church.
“As I stated earlier, I had confused him with the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch who is the legitimate successor of the ancient Patriarch of Antioch, the imposition of Sylvester by the Patriarch of Constantinople being uncanonical.”
Well, I would expect a Latin to believe this. Given the de facto (and we will see it de jure soon I believe) reunion of the Melkites in Lebanon with the Orthodox, the point today has very little meaning, so little in fact that it does not prevent intercommunion and common celebration of Pascha down there.
“This is a novelty completely against the canons that has no historical precedence in the undivided church.”
You may be correct though that is precisely the direction the present talks between Rome and the Orthodox hierarchs is heading. It is a not uncommon practice among the Orthodox patriarchs. The point of the discussions is finding an acceptable vehicle for the appropriate exercise of the Petrine office.
“Please explain how the judgment of the Laos tou Theou of the Greeks in rejecting an Ecumenical council has an authority that is not shared by the Laos tou Theou of the Egyptians.”
From an Ecumenical Council standpoint it doesn’t. The consensus of all the Orthodox at Chalcedon was set forth in the canons of the Council. That some Africans disagreed, or better said, appeared to have disagreed (along with some others) doesn’t change what The Church accepted as the consensus and AXIOS of the Laos tou Theou. The same was true at Florence. The West thought the False Union was fine, but the consensus of the Orthodox laity was otherwise.
“Please show the act by which Rome allegedly went into schism from the universal church.”
The easiest example is the adoption of the filioque, but there’s quite a list as you know.
Hopefully this could become a model for similar moves to improve relations between Rome and Constantinople/Moscow.
The point of the discussions is finding an acceptable vehicle for the appropriate exercise of the Petrine office.
And this is the direction that the discussions should go. The question should have always been on the proper exercise of the universal Petrine office within the context of a subsidiarity that respects the local office of the bishops, not as to whether there is indeed a Petrine office.
The consensus of all the Orthodox at Chalcedon was set forth in the canons of the Council. That some Africans disagreed, or better said, appeared to have disagreed (along with some others) doesn’t change what The Church accepted as the consensus and AXIOS of the Laos tou Theou. The same was true at Florence. The West thought the False Union was fine, but the consensus of the Orthodox laity was otherwise.
I do not understand. A consensus was reached by the bishops at Florence but this was negated because the Greek and Russian laity rejected it but the same rejection by the Egyptian laity does not negate Chalcedon. Please explain.
The easiest example [of schism] is the adoption of the filioque, but there’s quite a list as you know.
The proper charge here should be heresy (a matter that is in dispute), not schism. But the local bishop of Constantinople has no jurisdiction or authority to pass judgment on the bishops of the West. This complaint, in accord with ancient practice, should have been brought before a general council. Indeed, the West has always sought to resolve the dispute in a council but it has been the East that has refused this. Thus if there is any schism it must be on the part of the Orthodox bishops who have rejected the authority of the universal college of bishops even without going into the question of communion with the pope.
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.