Posted on 10/03/2006 2:24:04 PM PDT by kronos77
MOSCOW (Interfax) – The Roman Catholic Church should not impose its model of a faith community on the Orthodox Church, said the Russian Orthodox Church’s Moscow Patriarchate representative to a European dialogue between the Christian denominations.
”Whether the two ecclesiological models, namely, the Catholic one oriented at Rome as the center of the universal church unity, and the Orthodox one that is not oriented at any single center are compatible, only a full dialogue on the primacy between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches could reveal,” Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria said in a statement.
The Catholic-Orthodox international dialogue commission met Sept. 18-25 in Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro, for the first time since 2000 when talks were broken off over tensions between the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches in the former communist Eastern Europe.
This dialogue, the bishop said, would be possible only if “an ecclesiological model in which the patriarch of Constantinople occupies the place of an ‘Eastern pope’ is not imposed on the Orthodox Church.”
There has been no such a model in the Orthodox Church, he said, adding that a pan-Orthodox council is required and the consent of all local Orthodox churches before it could be established.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Ping
Bump for later read
Informative find.
Best of luck to any Pope attempting to 'impose' anything on the Orthodox. Sounds like a formula for another thousand years of bad blood.
Why would the Bishop assume that the Pope has any interest in such a thing?
"Why would the Bishop assume that the Pope has any interest in such a thing?"
My read of the entire article leads me to believe that this is precisely what +Kasper tried to get Orthodoxy to buy into. If so, this is very, very bad. As a Greek Orthodox Christian whose church is under the jurisdiction ultimately of Constantinople, I can tell you that eveb we Greeks want nothing to do with any "Eastern Pope". The canons are clear on the position of Constantinople. There is nothing more to talk about short of a Pan Orthodox or Ecumenical Council. If this report is correct, +Kasper may already have doomed these talks.
After my flippant post I also read the entire article (better late than never). I didn't really understand, from the article, how the Bishop became concerned about this matter since the only thing mentioned in the article being voted on apparently (who knows?) was a document regarding ecumenical councils:
Earlier he voiced his protest to Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who put a document on the authority of the ecumenical council to the vote at the Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church held in Belgrade.
I could just imagine Kasper trying to 'trick' anyone into voting for something they did not want.
Aha! We voted! No take backs!
That would go over like a lead balloon. Another thousand years of bad blood at a minimum, don't you think?
"I could just imagine Kasper trying to 'trick' anyone into voting for something they did not want.
Aha! We voted! No take backs!
That would go over like a lead balloon. Another thousand years of bad blood at a minimum, don't you think?"
S, why would they be "voting" on anything, especially in the first meeting? "Voting" has nothing to do with what, it appears, the Orthodox believe they are there for. As for +Kasper, well he's a man "with a past" as they say. Of course the Pope sent him there so that goes a long way for his bona fides.
I think this article has to be taken within the context of other statements, including the official one, which have come out thusfar. It may be that this was of little or no consequence (or not). Perhaps the author of the article has an agenda. The EP warned of this last year. In any event, I bet it won't happen again.
The 'ha! we voted' approach didn't work at Florence, it won't work now. The Latins have to understand the Orthodox magesterium is so completely distributed that even agreement of all the bishops (or all but one as happened at Florence, where St. Mark of Ephesus was the lone hold-out) isn't enough: the faithful, monastic and secular, lay and clerical (even us humble subdeacons), hold the consciousness of the Church.
S, here's a bit more on the subject of +Kasper's faux pas
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2089
The contentious issue was a section in the document deliberated during the meeting, a paragraph on the authority of Ecumenical Councils. It states that, in the second millennium, the East and the West continued to hold "general councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople". Bishop Hilarion is right in emphasising the fact that no pan-Orthodox Council has taken place after the 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicea in the year 787. He states that for the Orthodox tradition "communion with the See of Constantinople" has never been regarded as a criterion for the legitimacy of a council in the same way as did the communio with Rome in the West.
The Bishop is right to protest that language. If any of us on the Latin side fail to understand the problem with that kind of phrasing, maybe it's time to retire and find a hobby. Right, Cardinal?
"If any of us on the Latin side fail to understand the problem with that kind of phrasing, maybe it's time to retire and find a hobby."
I must say that I am surprised that +Kasper, as the co-chair and representative of the Pope displayed such a lack of knowledge of Orthodox ecclesiology (and history for that matter; even people here on FR know that all the councils held by Orthodoxy after the 7th were considered local and hence not binding dogmatically).
As I said in another thread, I do not understand how this statement could have made it into the document. But let us not put all the blame on Cardinal Kasper, it seems that it was approved by a majority of the Orthodox representatives who were present. How could this have happened?
Perhaps I am wrong, but it looks to me as if no vote was taken.
For this reason, the methodology chosen at the Belgrade meeting was unfortunate: when the Orthodox delegations were urged to vote on how to articulate the role of the patriarchate of Constantinople, the delegation from Moscow found itself in a minority position, despite the fact that it represented some 70% of Orthodox Christianity; its voting power was limited to 2 votes out of 30.
Yeah, I read that. It doesn't say there was a vote and in any event, I'd be astonished if any Orthodox Church other than perhaps Constantinople would vote for such a thing and if Constantinople did, there'd be trouble even in the American Church. Maybe they did, but as I said, I'd be astonished. I hope they didn't as I can assure you any understanding like the one +Kaspar proposed will be overwhelmingly rejected by the people...we've done it before.
This is one of the stupidest articles to come down the pike in a long time. Neither John Paul II or Benedict has ever even suggested anything like this, indeed, both have expressly said the opposite. If the article reports what the Patriarchate's representative actually said accurately, then the patriarchate is playing politics and trying to poison the well. I hope it distorts what he said because I hope that the Patriarchate is not trying to sow disinformation.
I'm in on the shallow end of a deep subject but who benefits from the separation of Catholic and Orthodox?
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.