Posted on 10/08/2010 8:24:11 AM PDT by marshmallow
The Pope would no longer select most bishops in a vision of restored Christian unity outlined by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in the US and Canada. Last year, participants in this dialogue criticized the work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which is the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue at the international level.
“Steps Towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future” was issued by the North American dialogue following a September 30-October 2 meeting in Washington. The dialogue also issued a second document, “Celebrating Easter/Pascha Together.”
The vision of restored unity in “Steps Towards a Reunited Church” includes the mutual adoption of the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed, which did not include the word Filioque (the original version said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” rather than “from the Father and the Son”).
A “renewed Roman primacy” would be essential to Christian unity, according to the document:
The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.
The document also called for a significant change in the relationship of the Pope and the Roman Curia to the rest of the Church in the West. Most significantly, the Pope would no longer select bishops in the West.
His universal role would also be expressed in convoking and presiding over regular synods of patriarchs of all the Churches, and over ecumenical councils, when they should occur. In the Western Church, this same presiding function would include convoking and leading regular episcopal synods. In harmony with the Pope’s universal ecumenical ministry, the Roman curia’s relationship to local bishops and episcopal conferences in the Latin Church would become less centralized: bishops, for instance, would have more control over the agenda and the final documents of synods, and the selection of bishops would again normally become a local process.
The new documents from the North American Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, chaired by Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans and Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, come less than a year after the North American dialogue criticized the Ravenna document, a modest consensus document on the papacy developed by the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. “Steps Towards a Reunited Church” appears to backtrack from this criticism by citing the Ravenna document in a positive manner.
First time I've heard of this body. Anyone know what it is and more importantly, how it relates to the recent high level international meeting in Vienna, if at all??
It sounds like something the USCCB concocted.......*nervous twitch*...........
Are they wandering off the reservation again?
Given the circumstances in the West at the moment, this would be DISASTROUS - it would give the Bishops' Conferences too much power. The Holy Father is the only one who really can break up power structures like the "Magic Circle" in the UK.
The system that the East uses works fine... for the East. I think we would just muck it all up if we tried it.
“First time I’ve heard of this body. Anyone know what it is and more importantly, how it relates to the recent high level international meeting in Vienna, if at all??”
It has been around for years with Met. Max in a lead role. The filioque suggestion was initially made years ago by this group. It is important to the extent that the diaspora Orthodox churches here have substantial influence with the Mother Churches back in Europe and the Middle East.
“It sounds like something the USCCB concocted.......*nervous twitch*........... “
I suspect you’ll find that the origin of the idea was on the Orthodox side of the table, though I don’t doubt that the USCCB has bought into it.
So should I still be nervous?
“So should I still be nervous?”
Well, M, imagine for a moment your US bishops in our essentially autonomous system.... Nervous? I’d be terrified! We’ve be at our system for 2000 years. It works with a laity which can and does take out errant bishops (even Patriarchs as the fellow in Jerusalem found out). You haven’t got that check and likely never will given the times and your history.
I should add that our synodal and diocesan systems are very highly developed which yours are not. They never had to be with the papal system.
Well, M, imagine for a moment your US bishops in our essentially autonomous system.... Nervous? I’d be terrified! We’ve be at our system for 2000 years. It works with a laity which can and does take out errant bishops (even Patriarchs as the fellow in Jerusalem found out). You haven’t got that check and likely never will given the times and your history.
Please forgive me for sticking my nose into your conversation, but I really felt compelled to say how much I appreciate your point of view on this. I, a Catholic, deeply admire and respect the Eastern Churches and your traditions, but to try to emulate them in the Catholic Church would be disastrous. And certainly now.
You know, so many Latins get all gushy and excited at the prospect of unity with Orthodoxy, but they don’t give even a moment’s thought to what it might mean, especially in ecclesiology. Leave off the theological differences, which are very real, and think what our response would be if a hierarch like your Archb. Burke decided to comment adversely on the actions of the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Boston! I can assure you it would be an instant break in communion because as we see it, it’s not his Metropolitinate and thus he has absolutely no right (indeed it violates several canons) to intrude. Similarly, what happens when your USCCB decides it wants to act like Orthodox bishops and Metropolitans? Or when one of your bishops attempts to close a convent of nuns who refuse to wear habits or demonstrate for abortion “rights” or some political issue current in society?
As I have said before, everyone, especially the Roman Catholic press, should just simmer down about these talks and dial down the naive, no, actually delusional, enthusiasm. We can accomplish all sorts of good together as partners in the world without pretending we have no differences and can intercommune.
All those meetings will come to nothing. The post Vatican II popes ways, are not God’s Way, but man’s way. God asked through His Blessed Mother at fatima that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart and his Most Sacred Hheart, that is God’s Way.
You know, so many Latins get all gushy and excited at the prospect of unity with Orthodoxy, but they don’t give even a moment’s thought to what it might mean, especially in ecclesiology.
Yes, but in essence this is a profound compliment, I think, to Orthodoxy. It speaks of the desire of Catholics generally to be one again with the Eastern Church.
Leave off the theological differences, which are very real, and think what our response would be if a hierarch like your Archb. Burke decided to comment adversely on the actions of the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Boston! I can assure you it would be an instant break in communion because as we see it, it’s not his Metropolitinate and thus he has absolutely no right (indeed it violates several canons) to intrude.
Would it really? I am not saying that he should or should not criticize any particular Eastern bishop, but wouldn't cessation of communion with an entire church because of the comments of one bureaucrat be a bit strong? Our churches did manage to maintain communion for a millennium and surely there were disputes and unwise comments on the parts of both sides occasionally. I do share you concerns about the problems, but I would hope that such things as this, which are likely going to happen anywhere, wouldn't themselves end hopes of reconciliation.
Similarly, what happens when your USCCB decides it wants to act like Orthodox bishops and Metropolitans? Or when one of your bishops attempts to close a convent of nuns who refuse to wear habits or demonstrate for abortion “rights” or some political issue current in society?
Yes, I am sure you are right about that. Our structures in the West, for good or ill, do seem very set and I don't think sudden changes are wise. And, as you say, people don't really consider these things at all when thinking of reunion.
“Yes, but in essence this is a profound compliment, I think, to Orthodoxy.”
It may well be. It certainly isn’t an insult!
“Would it really? I am not saying that he should or should not criticize any particular Eastern bishop, but wouldn’t cessation of communion with an entire church because of the comments of one bureaucrat be a bit strong?”
It would. But the break likely would be between the Met. of Boston and Archb. Burke and anyone under his omophorion, which might be no one given what he does, but it could extend to an entire particular church if the Orthodox hierarchs felt the actions of Archb Burke were a)as a practical matter outrageous enough and b) were being ignored by the Western Church bishops.
“I would hope that such things as this, which are likely going to happen anywhere, wouldn’t themselves end hopes of reconciliation.”
I can tell you that this very issue is a major concern on the Orthodox side, whether it dooms any hop of reunion is another matter.
It would. But the break likely would be between the Met. of Boston and Archb. Burke and anyone under his omophorion, which might be no one given what he does, but it could extend to an entire particular church if the Orthodox hierarchs felt the actions of Archb Burke were a)as a practical matter outrageous enough and b) were being ignored by the Western Church bishops.
Okay, this I think I understand, and I can imagine why such an action might be called for, given the differences between our Churches. We Catholics can always look to the Pope to come in and simply manage things like this. That may be good, and it may be bad, but it is what it is. Two independent Churches obviously require different responses to maintain communion and yet still be autonomous. An interesting example of that, and something we in the West would probably not expect and yet are well advised to consider.
I can tell you that this very issue is a major concern on the Orthodox side, whether it dooms any hop of reunion is another matter.
I worry that there is something of a paranoia in the East, but in any case mistrust surely exists, and it definitely should indicate why those who seem to think reunion is in the works today are kidding themselves. Of course, I personally think the theological divisions are far too great to be glossed over in the first place. Rome has not been able to bring back in the SSPX, and the theological differences between Rome and them are as much as nothing compared to the separation of East and West. But, I do still like to hear there are talks between our respective Churches about real theological and ecclesiological issues as I think we in the West can benefit from them. The East probably doesn't trust people like me at all, but I definitely think we can benefit from the East, even if reunion never comes about.
“But, I do still like to hear there are talks between our respective Churches about real theological and ecclesiological issues as I think we in the West can benefit from them. The East probably doesn’t trust people like me at all, but I definitely think we can benefit from the East, even if reunion never comes about.”
At the levels of theological and ecclesiological discussions, trust doesn’t need to enter into it. I have theological discussions with non Orthodox fairly regularly both here and elsewhere; in my own family as a matter of fact. It has never occurred to me to wonder if I trusted my interlocutors. Trust, however, becomes very important when the talk turns to actual as opposed to theoretical reunion. We absolutely should come to understand each other as completely as possible because that as an end in itself is a worthy one with undoubted spiritual and practical benefits for The Church whether in the East or the West. There is no need at this point to be talking reunion. It just makes for trouble.
With due respect, K, while the Greeks do act very strict (and I know I’m not wording that correctly, sorry), with their Bishops, I find it hard to believe that there is anything like that in the Russian Orthodox Church or even among the Romanian, Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodox Churches. Do you know of any instances in those autocephalous Churches?
“With due respect, K, while the Greeks do act very strict (and I know I’m not wording that correctly, sorry), with their Bishops, I find it hard to believe that there is anything like that in the Russian Orthodox Church or even among the Romanian, Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodox Churches. Do you know of any instances in those autocephalous Churches?”
The Russians remove bishops for theological and ecclesiological error and violations of the canons. I think the Serbs have too and relatively recently. Bishop Artemije was removed last February and the Serbian Orthodox bishop of Alaska (Nikolai) was removed back in 2008. The Romanians removed a Patriarch within the past 20 years or so but then put him back. I don’t know about the Bulgarians. You may remember that the Patriarch of Jerusalem was removed in 2005.
That the Laity are the guardians of Orthodoxy is very well established throughout Orthodoxy, C.
That the Laity are the guardians of Orthodoxy is very well established throughout Orthodoxy, C.
It helps, of course, that the Orthodox laity know their faith. Such a thing being possible in the West would be downright frightening.
“It helps, of course, that the Orthodox laity know their faith.”
Lex orandi, lex credendi, my friend. This is why we say that to learn Orthodoxy you don’t read a catechism, you live it.
Lex orandi, lex credendi, my friend. This is why we say that to learn Orthodoxy you don’t read a catechism, you live it.
Yes, you are right. But it helps if the way you pray teaches you something. One could be a regular attendee at Sunday Masses and come away with little in the way of substantive knowledge regarding the faith. The homilies are bad enough, but the grammar school watered-down translations are just impossible to get anything from. Things are in a bad way for us in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you would pray for us. We need it.
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.