Posted on 03/05/2015 5:33:11 AM PST by marshmallow
Acknowledging that the primacy of the pope is the greatest dogmatic obstacle to the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Greek Orthodox scholar Demetrios Bathrellos has attracted attention to the view held by the dissident 14th-century Byzantine Greek archbishop of Thessalonica, who held that see for some 20 years. This he does in an article, “St. Symeon of Thessalonica and the Question of the Primacy of the Pope,” which appeared in Sobornost, vol. 30 (2008), and which is worthy of being brought to the attention of Catholic ecumenists. Noting that Symeon was canonized by the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1981, and received fame for some impressive works on the Byzantine Liturgy, Symeon also wrote a valuable doctrinal work, “Dialogue in Christ against All Heresies” (see Migne in Patrologia Graeca, 155-176). It is in that work that he treats the question of the primacy of the pope.
Observing that two Catholic scholars, the Assumptionist Martin Jugie and the Czech Byzantinist Francis Dvornik, had previously treated Symeon’s view of the Roman Primacy, noting a certain convergence with Catholic doctrine. In candidly admittting Symeon’s “strong understanding of the primacy of the pope” he seeks to put it “properly within the context of both Orthodox Byzantine theology, in general, and the saint’s other writings.” The problem with this approach is that the context of “Orthodox Byzantine theology” to which he appeals is that of post-1054 deviations in doctrine, occurring among the Byzantines, which led to the formal schism with the Apostolic See of Rome, “head of all the Churches of God” (profession of faith by the Emperor Justinian I sent to Pope John II in 533 A.D).
Mr. Bathrellos relates six points which he says “support the claim that St. Symeon had a strong understanding.........
(Excerpt) Read more at hprweb.com ...
Orthodox ping!
It is seldom, no, never fruitful to quote the Latin polemicist Likudis to Orthodox Christians.
As a Greek Orthodox Christian, the Ravenna Document clearly states our position. That the Russians think otherwise is no surprise. Perhaps the matter will be cleared up and consensus found at the upcoming Great and Holy Council where I am sure the Pope will be ably represented.
As an aside, it is ironic that the thoroughly legalistic Russians would be opposed to some efforts at a reunion of the Churches. Their phronema, or mindset, is so much more Western than that of the Greeks and the Arabs and some of the Slavs one would think they would like the idea.
This is an unfortunate piece. While Likoudis is certainly no intellectual lightweight, he is, as K correctly points out, polemically hostile to Orthodoxy. I briefly considered throwing up something by the late Fr. John Romanides to make the point that we too can play that game. But I don’t see anything productive coming of it. Perhaps I will post something a little lighter in response.
For a far more serious and exhaustive discussion of ecclesiology in the early Church I suggest...
EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES by Met. Iakovos (John) Zizioulas, one of the foremost living theologians in the world. He has also been a close friend of many decades with Pope (E) Benedict XVI.
http://www.oodegr.co/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm
I posted this as a separate thread a while back. Sadly, of those who rack up the most posts in FR’s endless supply of low wattage inter-confessional flame war threads, few seem to have any interest in actually reading something that is really serious and or more than a page or two in length.
+John is truly a “Thoro tou Theou”, a Gift of God to The Church and his friendship with +BXVI undoubtedly one of the most important ecclesiastical pairings of the past two or three hundred years at least.
Or perhaps The River of Fire by Kalomiros, but again, no....
Oh my... I haven’t gotten around to that yet and I really need to. I have heard that it is somewhat controversial, even within the Church.
” I have heard that it is somewhat controversial, even within the Church.”
Really? I hadn’t heard that. I think it’s a marvelous piece. I remember thinking I only found one mistake in it and off the top of my head I can’t remember what it was. It may be that he attributed something to +Symeon the New Theologian which I was never able to confirm.
It will be interesting if any of the Latins want to discuss Met. John’s thoughts on ecclesiology in the first 1000 years of the Church. My Jesuit contacts tell me that +BXVI (who I think may have been the first Father of the Church since +Gregory Palamas) agreed with him.
K
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.