When this flag starts flying over Christian countries the "desire" will intensify.
Posted on 05/08/2006 8:39:16 PM PDT by pravknight
Wrong forum pal!
We require that blood be spilt on FR or it ain't a real discussion.
:)
"A surprisingly non-polemical Orthodox discussion of the Roman primacy)
Wrong forum pal!
We require that blood be spilt on FR or it ain't a real discussion."
Well, that title could lead to bloodshed! :)
I noticed Meyendorff was referenced repeatedly. From what I understand he is not thought too much of in Orthodox circles.
As far as Meyendorff is concerned, it depends upon who you talk to in Orthodox circles. The Old Calendarists despise him, but I have read Pope Benedict XVI holds him in high esteem.
"The Church consists of many churches in communion among themselves; the network of communion that the Church thus forms finds its fixed points in the Bishops: as the post-apostolic continuation of the Collegium Apostolorum [College of Apostles], they are responsible for the purity of the word and communion.
"With this as departure point, we can also realize the earliest meaning of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop .... It merely signified that the Roman Bishop of the sedes Sancti Petri [seat of St. Peter] was the central point of orientation in the unity of communion ....
"The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology. This means .... that Rome incarnates the true communio and, therefore, is the determining point of the horizontal relationship, without which a community cannot remain truly ecclesia"
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in I Grandi Temi del Concilio, Rome: Paoline, 1965, pp. 154-155).
"I noticed Meyendorff was referenced repeatedly. From what I understand he is not thought too much of in Orthodox circles."
His writing is very Western. Fr. Clapsis' generation is quite enamored of him, subsequent generations not so much.
"The Church consists of many churches in communion among themselves; the network of communion that the Church thus forms finds its fixed points in the Bishops: as the post-apostolic continuation of the Collegium Apostolorum [College of Apostles], they are responsible for the purity of the word and communion."
Well, yes and no. What the pope wrote is certainly true, but expressed as he did, this can lead one to the distinctly Western conclusion that the fullness of The Church does not exist in a single diocese which is what the Fathers, from +Ignatius of Antioch on taught.
I basing my perception on the attitude I've percieved from the Orthodox on this site have made, which to me seem pretty bad.
I think the Catholic response would be St. Ignatius was saying the Catholic Church is made present immediately through the local Church.
"I think the Catholic response would be St. Ignatius was saying the Catholic Church is made present immediately through the local Church."
No doubt, no doubt! Orthodoxy has a somewhat more ancient view and therein lies one of the differences in ecclesiology between the churches. It is, as this article and others from both sides of the schism make clear, more than just semantics.I have been told that +BXVI ascribes to the patristic view of the East, namely that the fullness of the Faith reposes within a local diocese. In that ecclesiology, the appropriate exercise of the the papacy is somewhat different from what it in fact or in appearence has been in the past. That said, there is no question but that the primacy of the "Elder brother at Rome" is very real and of necessity implies a sufficient "power" to exercise that office effectivly. Met John Zizoulias, as representative of the EP described it well last fall in an interview with the Italian press given during the Rome Synod. Its posted somewhere on FR.
I think that the stars haven't aligned for the unity in historical and political terms, even though there can be detected a genuine desire to work toward union on the part of the Orthodox and the Latins.
That is because the basis for unity that we perceive as we look East, is incompatible with the basis for unity we perceive as we look West. In the East we have a near-unity of theology and ecclesiology. It often seems that if a proper formulae were found regarding the Creed, the papacy and mariology, the whole thing would come together with a stroke of a pen. One thing that no one wants is uniformity of praxis that might lead to an erosion of the splendid Orthodox liturgy. It is therefore toward a greater conciliarity that we in the West should move in order to embrace the sister Church in the East.
The situation is exact opposite in the West, where we have a case after case of erosion of praxis, most gravely with the Protestant desacralization of service and manifest within the Catholic Church herself in the rush to modernize and capitulate to the state. The basis for unity in the West therefore is centralized authority, that would, the theory goes, rescue the remnant of traditional piety in the Anglican and Lutheran denominations.
The East wants unity of sisterhood. The West wants authority of fatherhood. When I am pope, I will look to the East first, and will let the spoiled children of Rome work out their prodigalities for another couple of generations. Who said we are short of time?
I think the Orthodox view regarding the unity of the local churches on the universal level is a bit foggy, and I think a lot of Orthodox questions have been defined Rome says A so we think B.
We Uniates are point C, stuck in between, being neither Roman nor Orthodox.
When this flag starts flying over Christian countries the "desire" will intensify.
... the distinctly Western conclusion that the fullness of The Church does not exist in a single diocese ...I've never heard of such a conclusion. That's like saying that the fullness of Christ does not exist in a single host. Who or what expressed this drivel?
Vatican I, which placed supreme authority in the pope, left some uncertainty regarding the relations between the papacy, the universal episcopate, and ecumenical synods (which are not necessarily mere meetings of bishops). Since this uncertainty was not fully cleared up by Vatican II. the question of the supreme directive power in the Church still requires further discussion within the Roman Catholic communion.
We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as "supreme power" transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo?Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome ? "presiding in agape" according to St Ignatios of Antioch.
In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy.
This does not imply that this different understanding is unimportant but that a real communion does exist even as we continue in an imperfect way to come to a fuller understanding of the truth.
Benedict XVI will be the Pope of the ecumenical turning point. Who says this, in an interview to ANSA, is Alexis II, Ecumenical [sic] Patriarch of all the Russias: "We expect from him concrete facts to solve the existing difficulties; one may expect that, exactly for this reason, the pontificate of Benedict XVI will become famous and will be remembered". The Patriarch of Moscow adds: "The declarations of Benedict XVI on the will to develop the relations with the Orthodox Church inspire hope that the situation will change for the better."
"While complete unanimity on theological and canonical levels is desirable, is it not possible to recognize a sacramental unity before all the details are worked out? A practical unity could be achieved if, on the Orthodox side, they would put into practice what they claim about the Petrine office. In other words, if the Orthodox would unequivocally recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, allow inter-communion, and reinsert the name of the Pope into the prayers of the Church while at the same time saying to the Romans: "we disagree with your understanding of the primacy but will not let that be a hindrance to our communion." On the Catholic side there should likewise be the acceptance that the different understanding by the Orthodox of the Petrine primacy does not break the communion between us. I would also like to see this real, if incomplete, unity proclaimed to the whole world by a Liturgy presided over by the Pope and concelebrated by the Eastern patriarchs, after which they could all turn to one another and say: "now let us continue to discuss these issues that are disputes within the Church and not disputes between churches."
Won't work. The extent and understanding of Petrine Primacy must be decided upon by the whole Church first. Once Orthodoxy and Rome are in accord on the proper exercise of that primacy, then we can have sacramental communion and work out the theological details at an Ecumenical Council. To pretend to a sort of communion and give that visible manifestation by sacramental intercommunion when in fact we still disagree on the main problem would be totally unacceptable to any Orthodox Christian. It would be a denial of the true meaning of communion, which, Petrosius, as you certainly know is a matter of the relationship between bishops, contrary to popular belief.
Your comment about us simply commemorating the Pope in our liturgies is born of a misunderstanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. Our priests and the laity do not commemorate, for example, the EP in our liturgies. We commemorate our local hierarch, in my parish's case our Metropolitan. The Metropolitan commemorates the Patriarch. In countries which have autocephallous churches, the national hierarch would be commemorated. I suspect that in a reunited Church, it would be the heads of the "particular churches" who would commemorate the Pope.
"I've never heard of such a conclusion. That's like saying that the fullness of Christ does not exist in a single host. Who or what expressed this drivel?"
I believe either +JPII or +BXVI. I'll try to find a link. I know we have discussed this point here on FR a number of times in the past.
But is not this backwards. There has never been a requirement for complete theological agreement in the Church, otherwise there would be no communion between the Greeks and the Russians. Communion in the Church should be the assumption, only to be broken by heresy or schism. Since, from an Orthodox point of view, an ecumenical council has never explicitly taught on the subject then there can be no just cause to break communion. Until an ecumenical council recognized by the Orthodox rules on the matter, the Orthodox position can be no more than theological opinion.
As for an act of schism, this can only come from the Orthodox side since the Eastern patriarchs claim no jurisdiction over the West. If the Pope were to take the position that a true and complete understanding of the Petrine office is still an open question and that the Orthodox position does not rise to the level of schism, then what is the justification for denying communion between the local churches?
Your comment about us simply commemorating the Pope in our liturgies is born of a misunderstanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.
I was referring to the practice of including the name of the pope in the diptychs, the removal of which by the Patriarch of Constantinople signaled the start of the schism. I was under the impression that his name would have been included throughout the East but from you comments I take it that it was only included in those of the patriarchs.
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.