Catholic Online Forum

In cardinal Kasper's comment about the ecumencial dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, he gives his idea about how full communion is to be restored from a Roman Catholic point of view.

Excerpt:
Quote:
"The second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- ‘taxis' in Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first among them. (...) "So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches."
The discussion, from his point of view, seems (basically) to be about finding a way in which the primace of the pope is to be exercised with the Eastern Orthodox Churches not yet in full communion with Rome.

However, is this how things are seen by the Eastern Orthodox? Doesn't this imply that the Roman Catholic Church indeed is the Church in which the true Church of Christ "subsists" and that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one that is schismatic and has to return to full communion? Doesn't the Eastern Orthodox Church consider itself to be the true Church of Christ and that the Roman Catholic Church is schismatic for reasons of claiming universal primacy over all the other churches and for adding the filioque to the creed? Wouldn't it feel strange for the Eastern Orthodox if the "first among equals" after a future reconciliation would be the one that previously was schismatic?

I am not trying to ask a rhetorical question, I am just curious about in what way the Eastern Orthodox think that a possible future reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church would look like.

Yes.


I believe what Cardinal Kasper is saying that the Orthodox agree that if reconciliation occurs, the "primate at the universal level" will be the Pope of Rome, not that they currently recognize Pope Benedict as such.

In a similar way Catholics agree that, if reconciliation occurs, the Patriarch of Constantinople will rank second -- but we don't currently recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as such b/c we consider him to be in schism.

Blessings,
Peter.

One Orthodox view is that the original churches have always been without a head and that the Patriarch of the West (the Pope) is equal with the other Patriarchs. Some might admit a primacy of honor but not more. Some will say that the Ecumenical Councils have the say and not any bishop including the Bishop of Rome.


The term "Orthodox Church" was created to differentiate between the Catholics and the ones that split. Those that split could not take on the name "Catholic Church" as the original Church was named, so they made up another name "Orthodox Church"

That term meant only one thing before the split. It meant the correct (traditional) path. The meaning comes from the terms "ortho" "and doxa".
Ortho=correct, straight, upright
Doxa=path

These churches will have to adopt a new name when they unite with their Eastern Catholic counterparts. How else would it be recognized that there is unity? So the Greek Orthodox Church will unite with the Greek Catholic Church and they will follow only one Patriarch of Constantinople and not the current two. This united Church (or Rite) can then be called the Greek Church, The Church of Constantinople, or the Greek Catholic Church or whatever they agree upon.
The Syrian Orthodox Church will reunite with the Syrian Catholic Church and follow one Patriarch of Antioch etc.....and be called the Church of Antioch or whatever they agree upon.
The united Coptic Church can go back to its former name of the Church of Alexandria and so on with the other Churches or Rites.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

^^ Not correct.

I'm afraid your facts are not entirely correct: there is no Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople. (Similarly, there is no Orthodox bishop of Rome.)

God bless,
Peter.

Thanks for bringing this up.
I meant by "the current two" the current two Greek Patriarchs.
The Greek Orthodox one and the Melkite Greek Catholic one. Both of these use the same Byzantine Rite (also known as the Constantinopolitan Rite).
The whole idea I was trying to make is that the Orthodox and the Catholic using the same rite would unite and have one head or patriarch instead of the current two (one Catholic and one Orthodox).
Sorry for my lack of accuracy.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

If it ever comes to it and we get united, Orthodox will indeed accept the primacy of the Pope of Rome of honor but nothing more. He could only be "the first among equals". The acceptation will not be anything strange as the Pope already had this honor before the great schism. The document of recent Ravena talks confirms this.



Absolutely true. The name of the original Church was Catholic Church. Every time when I say "creedo" there is "...In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". I suppose we know that the word Catholic has Greek origins (katholikos from katholou) and means universal or communal Church. However, although we do not have the name, we find our Church has the charactaristics, tradition, and the Roman Catholics have... the Name.



The names will not be such a problem if it ever came to it..but now to be realistic...

I would like indeed that world has only one Church. However, the chances are almost zero to be honest. Orthodox (and Roman Catholics) are open for talks. That's fine. Anyway, Pope's primate, filioque, indulgenices, purgatory are some of dogmatic differencies over which Orthodox will never accept union...do you think there will be any Pope in Rome who will say "Ok, we Roman Catholics, have kept wrong teachings for 1000 years, now we are retourning to the faith we had first 1000 years..." - not really. That is how we see things.

Regards!

JMJ



the name for this is "anti-Catholic rethoric" and is a sufficient cause to have one's own membership terminated around here, ecumenical dialogue or not.

Fabrizio
COL Forum Staff

Hello Fabrizio: Please tell me...how can I speak in Orthodox way without being indirectly (or directly) oposed to Roman Catholic teachings. Theremore I took care and said "We Find our church..." Or don't you think so?

JMJ

No, I don't think so.

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773!

The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that's where I'll be-Fr. T. Vakoc

Brother in Christ, by doing further that way, you will have ecumenical diologue among Roman Catholics only. Is to hear another's oppinion so difficult? How would you state it otherwise? When your friend above tells "Orthodox are the one that split" you do not find it to be Anti-Orthodox rethoric. Do you? I could but I do NOT as everyone can say his own thinking.

There can be no dialogue if I cannot tell you here that we find that the Roman Catholics put away their traditions they had first 1000 years and are in schism now, if I cannot tell you that indeed we consider our Church to be the only one that preserved the apostolic teachings and the pontifex of Rome splitted his part of the Church from the rest etc...

Is this a problem to say? Roman Cathlics can say then their point...

JMJ

"Eastern",

I have told you what the problem was. Other non-Catholics here have been posting for years with no problem discussing even the most delicate points of doctrine.

Also, kindly sign your posts with some real name as per Forum Rules and Policies you are assumed to have read and accepted at the moment of registration. Thanks.

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773!

The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that's where I'll be-Fr. T. Vakoc

As you well know every church will try to say that it is the original and true Church established by Christ. I would not be surprised if many of the Protestant churches claim that same thing. Should we believe them all?
It is obvious that Christ instituted one Church only: And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ was speaking singly (thee in the original languages was for a single person) to Peter and no one else. Note that Christ says "My Church" which means it is one church (not churches) and it belongs to Christ.
So it is either we are the one or one of the Orthodox churches is the one. We cannot be both the one. Which one is it?
Let us see what the Fathers of the Church (which we both believe in) have to say:



Let us also see what the early councils had to say:




If you can show me the same type of quotes of the Fathers and of councils, applied to any other church besides that of Rome (eg church of Constantinople or Church of Antioch etc...) or to any other Apostle besides St Peter (eg St John or St Matthew) then we can both agree that the see of Peter is equivalent to all the other sees and that the Church of Rome is also equivalent to all the other churches.
If you cannot find these quotes and if you want to follow the Fathers then you have to accept what they are saying here about the See of Rome and the Chair of Peter.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

I forgot to add another point.
When you recite the Creed you say "We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...". Notice I underlined two of the marks of the Church because that is what is lacking to all the Orthodox churches.
Look around you and you will see that all the Orthodox Churches are not united into one church and they are not universal. They are all national churches-for example Greeks belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, Russians to one of the Russian Orthodox churches etc...
The only church that has all the 4 marks is the Catholic Church-you can be a Chinese Catholic or a French Catholic or a Greek Catholic etc...
When the Catholic Church talks with the Orthodox, it has to talk to several representatives of the different Orthodox churches-and not with one that represents all the Orthodox. But if any of the Orthodox churches want to communicate with the Catholic Church, they talk to one Church only.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

Because a Church is made up of autocephalous Churches does not make it separate. The Orthodox Church shares one common liturgy, one common Eucharist. That's what makes the Church "holy, catholic and apostolic." All the faithful in all the nations worshiping in their own language the same liturgy and sharing the same Eucharist. America presents unique problems as its a nation of immigrants, but Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Antiochians, are all part of the one Church. You don't need one Head bishop with autocratic over the rest to make one Church. Christ is the head. Blessings!

_________________
In Christ

Ryan

"Grant, O Lord, that I may now love Thee as once I loved sin itself, and that I may labor for Thee without laziness as once I labored for Satan the deceiver."

They are still not united and are independent from one another. For example, they can disagree with each other-and that is not unity. Below you shall see a recent article, where the Orthodox Patriarch of Russia is disagreeing with the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. The Russians "protested the decision by the Patriarch of Constantinople" and unfortunately they do not have a head to unite them. They are divided along national lines. Who will decide now if Russia is correct or if Constantinople is correct?

Also, to call different Orthodox "one" on the basis of their use of the same liturgy does not make sense-because that would make the Eastern Catholics, using the same liturgy, part of the Orthodox Church and we know that this is not so.
As a matter of fact, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics of the same nation, do use the same Liturgy and they are not "one".

If two or more people disagree on things, then we cannot call them united or "one". We do not consider their opinion as one (the same) for all involved- and so they cannot be "one". We call them independent, and deal with them as two or three, or whatever their number may be. The Catholic Church cannot deal with all the Orthodox by dealing with one Patriarch that represents them all. It has to deal with each nations Orthodox Patriarch(s). If they were really one then they would have one represent them all but we know that this is not the case.

Russian Orthodox again walk out of pan-Orthodox meeting
The Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow has escalated a dispute with the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the recognition of an independent Estonian Orthodox Church.

A Russian delegation has walked out of a meeting of Orthodox prelates, convened by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The top Russian delegate, Archbishop Nikolai Balashov, said that the Moscow patriarchate could not accept the seating of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59223


This sort of thing would not happen in the Catholic Church because of its unity. The Catholic Church is the only church on earth that can claim to have people in different nations or continents, that are united as one.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

Its kind of ironic, this whole issue between Russia and Constantinople is because of Constantinople trying to assert itself as "first among equals" in the Orthodox Church and stepping over into the territory of another autocephalous Church. But even with this, the Churches have not broken communion with each other. This is not a difference in doctrine or theology, but a territorial dispute about one bishop setting up diocese in the territory of another, in this case Constantinople creating the independent Church of Estonia (which the majority of Orthodox Churches will not recognize). This is an example too of how Constantinople does not speak for the rest of Orthodox Christianity like many people would like to think or how the Ecumenical Patriarch would like to have the world and the Pope think. Disagreements among Orthodox have nothing to do with theology, but with territorial issues (complicated by the Turkish occupation and oppression of Constantinople, the Church reemerging in the former soviet union) and the calendar. I'd say this is pretty good considering the many languages and cultures that make up the Church.

You make a good point though, that a common liturgy in itself make unity, any schismatic groups within the Orthodox Church still maintain the Liturgy of John Chrysostom, and the Eastern Catholics do too, I admit this was over simplistic. I would revise this to say that a common Eucharist, for which the liturgy is the vehicle, is what makes a Church. Again, this is far too simplistic. My point is though that disagreements can exist without making a Church separate.

Just because there are a variety of Eastern catholic churches, and just because there are many who disagree with Vatican II reforms, and that just because there are many different Orders within the Catholic Church who often disagree with each other or rival each other doesn't mean that the Roman Catholic Church is divided. I would say its very comparable within the EOC, the difference being that in the EOC there is only one liturgy and there are rarely theological disputes.

_________________
In Christ

Ryan

"Grant, O Lord, that I may now love Thee as once I loved sin itself, and that I may labor for Thee without laziness as once I labored for Satan the deceiver."