Posted on 05/27/2008 8:03:16 PM PDT by Petrosius
Timisoara, May. 27, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A Romanian Orthodox bishop has shared Communion with Catholics, causing a sensation in a country where Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox have a history of tense relations.
At the consecration of the Queen of Peace parish church in Timisoara on May 25, Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu of Banat asked to share Communion. The Orthodox metropolitan approached the altar and received the Eucharist from his own hand.
Romanian Catholic Bishop Alexandru Mesian of Lugoj was the celebrant of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Catholic church; Archbishop Francisco-Javier Lozano, the apostolic nuncio to Romania, was also present.
Although Orthodox and Catholic bishops often join in ecumenical services, and occasionally participate in each other's liturgical ceremonies, they do not share Communion-- an indication of the breach in ecclesial communion between the Orthodox churches and the Holy See. In Romania, tensions between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern-rite Romanian Catholic Church have been pronounced, adding to the surprise created by Metropolitan Corneanu's action.
With some Orthodox believers outraged by the metropolitan's sharing Communion with Catholic bishops, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania issued a statement saying that at the next meeting of the Orthodox synod, in July, Metropolitan Corneanu "may be asked to give an appropriate explanation" for his action.
The statement from the Orthodox patriarchate went on to say that ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church, "already quite fragile, cannot be helped, but are rather complicated," by sharing in Communion.
Metropolitan Corneanu-- who was one of the first Orthodox bishops to admit that he had cooperated with the secret police under the Communist regime-- has a record of friendship with Romanian Catholics. He was among the few Orthodox leaders prepared to return church properties that had been seized by the Communist government from Catholic ownership in 1948 and handed over to Orthodox control.
I think you are dead wrong on this one dear sister. If that is an Orthodox prelate (i.e. bishop or archibishop), as you allege, he would not be kissing the Pope's hand.
Chances are he could be an Orthodox priest, archpriest (monsignor in the Latin Church), or an abbot, in which case he would kiss any bishop's hand; or he may be a Melkite (i.e. Greek "Catholic") prelate, although I doubt it. In the Orthodox Church, the Bishops exchange the apostolic kiss, but they don't kiss each other's hands.
When Pope Benedict XVI visited the Patriarchy at Panar (Turkey), the first to greet him was a Orthodox priest who promptly kissed the Pope's right hand. Right behind him was an orthodox Bishop who embraced the Pope, as one Apostle would embrace another.
There is a similar photograph of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the late Greek prelate Chrstodoulos visiting the Vatican, and one can see a Catholic priest kissing the patriarch's right hand.
The clergy of both particular Churches are valid. Our non-communion does not invalidate the Holy Orders of the other side. They are 'real' bishops, and showing the same respect to Catholic clergy by the Orthodox laity and vice versa goes without saying.
Exactly. At the very core, the filioque, taken as the "beginning" or "origin" (which is what the Greek wording means), is a Trinitarian heresy.
There is only one origin of everything and all, and that is the Father. The filioque, as you said, Kolo, destroys the monarchy of the Father.
What thgey wrote is not binding. The pronoucements of an Ecumenical Council are.
We have always understood the procession of the Spirit in this context, and that is the context in which the Latin half of the Church (and the Pope too I'll wager) originally ratified and accepted the language of the Creed.
So have wee. Read +Greagory Palamas (13th century). There is no doubt that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but, as +Palamas puts it, as regards His existence, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Remember, although the Word and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, it is the Father who gave rise to everything and all, including the divivity, and is the only one without a cause.
Filioque disregards thre fundamental statement of the source from which He proceeds, as regards His existence.
I am confident that while the Pope will defend the Catholic faith, he is very much aware of the correctness of the Greek position. If a language cannot adequately translate the original, then the language is inadequate to use in translation.
“Remember the “8th” (Photian) Council(s)?”
I never doubted for a minute that you’d catch that one! :)
Correct. Remember the "8th" (Photian) Council(s)? First there was one that condemned +Photius and was signed by a Pope, then 10 years later on the dime, that one was annulled and a "new" 8th council restored Photius and dropped filioque, and was signed by a Pope (a different one). Then, after the Great Schism, Rome reverted back to "first" 8th Council that condemned +Photius and it's still the "official" 8th Council in the Latin Church.
Oh, let us not forget the Council of Florence, first accepted by the East and then rejected. I guess inconsistency is a prerogative of the East.
As for the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople (879) being accepted by Rome and only rejected after the Schism, let us see what Philip Schaff (neither Catholic nor Orthodox, a German Reformed scholar in the U.S.) has to say in his History of the Christian Church:
The papal legates assented to all, and so deceived their master by false accounts of the surrender of Bulgaria that he thanked the emperor for the service he had done to the Church by this synod.So Pope John briefly accepted this council because he was deceived and quickly repudiated it once he found out what it really contained.But when the pope’s eyes were opened, he sent the bishop Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done contrary to his instructions. For this Marinus was shut up in prison for thirty days. After his return Pope John VIII. solemnly pronounced the anathema on Photius, who had dared to deceive and degrade the holy see, and had added new frauds to the old. Marinus renewed the anathema after he was elected pope (882).
“So Pope John briefly accepted this council because he was deceived and quickly repudiated it once he found out what it really contained.”
So a Protestant would have us believe. The facts, as they say, are well known and otherwise. Pope John repudiated because of factionalism at Rome and Constantinople, not because anyone deceived him.
Yes, clearly a pro-Roman source.
The facts, as they say, are well known and otherwise. Pope John repudiated because of factionalism at Rome and Constantinople, not because anyone deceived him.
Your sources are? Pope John accented only to the report of the legates. Once the actual acts were forwarded by Photius for ratification he condemned them.
Well, as Cheverus said, we have wandered far off topic, and moreover I am in no way qualified to judge the theology behind the filioque. Wiser heads than we are working on it, and they are increasingly saying there may be not be as much of a problem as we once thought.
And kosta, if you interpreted my argument as supporting the actions of the Romanian bishop, I didn’t express myself clearly. I don’t think he should have done it, and I am strongly opposed to full intercommunion at this point in time (at least where there is no existing tradition of it). This thread all but proves we are not quite there yet.
Ah, insult time, is it? Sounds like an admission of defeat to me.
The faux re-union of Florence was an act of desperation on the part of the Church hierarchy and the Roman Emperor (the Ottoman Turks were knocking on the doors of Constantinople and the East needed all the help it could muster).
So, they agreed to everything the Vatican dished out at them, save for one brave bishop. The false re-union failed not because of the duplicity or the prerogative to inconsistency of the East, but because the people of God and the lower clergy rejected it.
In the Orthodox Church, we don't have the "pray, pay and obey" rule. If the people of God do not go along, it won't happen. Orthodox saints are not proclaimed by the hierarchy but venerated spontaneously by the people, just as in the early days of our Church. The laity, laos tou Theou, the people of God are an integral part of the Church and not just mindless believers.
As for the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople (879) being accepted by Rome and only rejected after the Schism...Pope John briefly accepted this council because he was deceived and quickly repudiated it once he found out what it really contained
The source you are using (Philip Schaff) to show that the Pope was deceived and then changed his acceptance is only one version as to what happened, which happens to agree with the official Catholic position and is therefore your choice. That doesn't make it necessarily right or even credible.
The fact that Schaff is a Reformed scholar, which you mention to add credibility to your position, is irrelevant. Historian Francis Dvornik, a Catholic, argues that the Fourth Council of Constantinople was accepted by Pope John VIII, a position opposite that of Schaff's.
Historical facts, however, back Dvornik's argument because +Photius' restoration was not revoked by Pope John VIII, but only after the Great Schism in the 11th century. If Pope John VIII did revoke the Council of 879, then Photius would have been denounced (again) and deposed, as in the previous Council a decade earlier.
Since this didn't happen, the only plausible conclusion is that the Pope did agree to the Council of 879 and that the Latin Church reversed its stance after the Great Schism of 1054.
In fact, another historical consideration backs this up. The filioque was not added to the Creed officially by the Vatican until the 11th century, just before the Great Schism, and the Council of 879 was, among other things, denounced the inclusion of filioque as heresy.
If Pope John VIII did change his mind, such official inclusion wold have occurred right there and then, but it didn't.
There is nothing magical to support Shaff's assertion. It differs from other historian's, the historical events that followed the Council of 879 credibly support the opinion that the Council was approved and that, at least for a while, the Frankish popes of Rome tolerated it.
One must be very careful of many, many forgeries that exist. One must look at the historical circumstances of the events and try to see if the various documents reflect a harmonious historical picture of one that is intenable.
P, scroll down about 1/3 the way on this link for a discussion of this entire affair within the context of facts on the ground in Rome, Constantinople and Bulgaria.
http://www.orthodox-unis.net/en_history.htm
The article is by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia who, as you likely know, is an Oxford don.
Yes, wiser heads met a few years back and conlcuded that the Catholic side should not use the filioque. That doesn't mean the filioque is wrong. We also believe that the Spirit proceeds "and through the Son" as is evidenced by the Orthodox doctrines stated by +Gregory Palamas (13th c), but, for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts, the filioque does not express the intended meaning of the Creed in its original (and immutable) form, which is that, as regards His existence, the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
I am strongly opposed to full intercommunion at this point in time (at least where there is no existing tradition of it). This thread all but proves we are not quite there yet
I think you are right.
Here is the comment of the “wiser heads”. Its worth the read.
“An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003”
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
Could please give a fuller citation for this. I would be interested in reading it before commenting.
Historical facts, however, back Dvornik's argument because +Photius' restoration was not revoked by Pope John VIII, but only after the Great Schism in the 11th century. If Pope John VIII did revoke the Council of 879, then Photius would have been denounced (again) and deposed, as in the previous Council a decade earlier.
Since this didn't happen, the only plausible conclusion is that the Pope did agree to the Council of 879 and that the Latin Church reversed its stance after the Great Schism of 1054.
Nonsense. By this time Ignatius was dead and Photius was legally elected patriarch. The condemnations of 869 concerning his prior illegal election did not apply to the then current situation and there was no need to restate them. This does not imply that John VIII accepted as binding the theological statements of 879.
Two quotes from that joint statement I'd like to pull out. First a statement of history/theology:
both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their existence and their activity radiates;and a recommendation:
that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
You seem not to understand the Ecclesiology, but I don’t under stand the use of the word Deacon to refer to Deaconessessess in the Greek Orthodox Church.
The Latin Church is the Church that uses the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome are those that use the Byzantine rite, the Maronite Church is the Church in Communion with Rome that uses the Maronite Church etc.
To use an overly simplistic and secular comparison, to call a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church Latin is like calling a Cadillac and Lincoln, both fine cars, but entirely different.
They don’t see themselves as Latin Bishops, and the Latin Bishop of Rome does not see them as Latin Bishops.
It is therefore out of courtesy that they should be addressed thus.
Perhaps because there's no such thing as a Deaconess in the Orthodox Christian Church?
“You seem not to understand the Ecclesiology,...”
Trust me on this, I understand the ecclesiology. Most Orthodox completely understand the origin and purpose of the “Byzantine Catholic” churches. The Maronites are beyond doubt completely sui juris as they have been for a very, very long time. The Melkites have demonstrated their complete independence from Rome and I suspect you will find that there is little or no talk of “universal immediate jurisdiction” or even infallibility coming out Romne directed at the Melkites. The Byzantine Catholics are a completely different matter and with a complete understanding of their ecclesiology, we see no distinction at all between those particular churches and the Church of Rome. Sorry but that’s just the way it is.
“...but I don’t under stand the use of the word Deacon to refer to Deaconessessess in the Greek Orthodox Church.”
Neither do I but perhaps I don;t understand your point. If you are speaking of the reinstitution of that order in the Church of Greece, on that I am informed and will answer whatever questions you might have.
These are the recommendations which are recognized as something beyond the usual ecumenical irenicism we have gotten used to hearing from these dialogs. It is precisely because of these recommendations that progress resumed in talks after they were broken off over the pretensions of certain Eastern European particular churches to be a method for a reestablishment of communion between the Patriarchates and Rome.
“# that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
# that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.”
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.