Article entitled 'Vatican takes step to reabsorb Orthodox Church'

[Basil Shannon]

Vatican Takes Step to Reabsorb Orthodox Church

The Vatican has drafted a joint document with Orthodox Church leaders declaring that the pope has primacy over all Catholic and Orthodox bishops. The agreement was reached by a joint international commission in Revenna, Italy, on October 13 and released by the Vatican on Thursday.

The document specifically declares that the pope held the highest position in the unified church before the Great Schism in 1054, and that the bishop of Rome was the protos, or first, among the patriarchs, including those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Read full article here: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0


I've read a variety of documents regarding the exact interpretation of the postion of Pope in the first several centures, but nothing that proves papal supremecy, except by quite a stretch. In fact, if I remember right, Saint Gregory, even condemned any suggestion of supremecy over other bishops.

What does this recent "joint" document mean for us? What should be done in reponse by the Orthodox faithful?

Basil

[Father David Moser]

What does this recent "joint" document mean for us? What should be done in reponse by the Orthodox faithful?

Well, I guess it means exactly the same as all of its predecessors - nothing. This document is nothing more than justification for those who derive their life's work from ecumenical dialog to continue to dialog. When you reduce the verbiage to its core all this document says is that the See of Rome has historically held the first place among the historic Orthodox patriarchates - and that is historically accurate. The document says nothing substantial about supremacy, authority, infallibility, etc etc. Also you might want to note that while some delegates from some of the Orthodox Churches were involved - noticeably absent was any participation by the Russian Church - arguably the largest Orthodox national Church and the one that is most active and influential on an international scale. So my take is that this charade means absolutely nothing.

Fr David Moser

[Stuart Dunn]

Ravenna Document can be found here (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html). Haven't read it yet, but every secular media source has a different slant on it. So I wouldn't trust any title or articles until one actually reads the document.

[Andreas Moran]

No, thank you very much!

[Simon]

Dear Brethren,

I've just read the article, and personally am glad to see that dialogue continues. Joint Communion amongst all Christians is an outcome I doubt can happen during my lifespan, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to seek it. Timespans in human history show that sometimes it's worth persevering. Look at our faith three hundred years after the death of our Saviour - who could have believed in the development of the Church then? In Vicenza, Italy, the two Orthodox communities (Moldova and Serb) rely entirely on this dialogue in order to have a place to pray at all, everything material has been supplied by the Roman Catholic Church, in good grace as far as one can see.

It may be noted that the reason the Russian Church did not participate was because of internal squabbling amongst Orthodox - the refusal of the Russian Patriarchate to recognise the Estonian Orthodox Church, rather than a refusal to dialogue with Roman Catholics. The Moldova Church (part of the Russian Patriarchate), locally participates in all of the ecumenical events organised by the Roman Catholic Bishopric. I know the priest well enough to say that he believes in this dialogue, and does not attend out of a sense of self-interest to keep them sweet.

On another note, my heart was uplifted recently when I saw a photo of Patriarch Pavel of Serbia greeting two Muslim clerics who had come to visit him in hospital. There was no feigning the joy on his lovely old face.

Love to all,
Simon

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!


In Vicenza, Italy, the two Orthodox communities (Moldova and Serb) rely entirely on this dialogue in order to have a place to pray at all, everything material has been supplied by the Roman Catholic Church, in good grace as far as one can see.
Simon

That churches are made dependent on the RC for having place to pray is hilarious! Every orthodox community is able to rent some place for it self on let the rc keep theirs for themselves.

As we see in the conclusion of the document nothing is said that the orthodox churches who attended the Ravenna document recognize all of the sudden the pope of Rome as the head of their churches!


Conclusion

45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

We don't need the rc pope, we have the Holy Spirit which will guide the orthodox Churches in all what have to be done. We are united and the rc is not the church we recall whenever we pray and remember the Creed!

The invitation of the Estonian church initiated by the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew and the rc, was a clear affront of the Russian Orthodox Church and was not discussed before!

They knew and took for granted that the Russian delegation could not stay under such terms and conditions. That is the way brotherly love is meant by the rc and the ecumenical Patriarch.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

The Ravenna Document's clause 11 reads:


The Church exists in many different places, which manifests its catholicity. Being "catholic", it is a living organism, the Body of Christ. Each local Church, when in communion with the other local Churches, is a manifestation of the one and invisible Church of God. To be "catholic" therefore means to be in communion with the one Church of all times and of all places. That is why the breaking of eucharistic communion means the wounding of one of the essential characteristics of the Church, its catholicity.

I find the last sentence of this clause especially problematic. The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church cannot be 'wounded' (whatever is meant by that). Any break in communion is a falling away from the Church and the Church cannot thereby be diminished. The Church, the Body of Christ, is entire and whole at all times.

[Simon]

Dear Brethren!

That churches are made dependent on the RC for having place to pray is hilarious! Every orthodox community is able to rent some place for it self on let the rc keep theirs for themselves.

As we see in the conclusion of the document nothing is said that the orthodox churches who attended the Ravenna document recognize all of the sudden the pope of Rome as the head of their churches!

We don't need the rc pope, we have the Holy Spirit which will guide the orthodox Churches in all what have to be done. We are united and the rc is not the church we recall whenever we pray and remember the Creed!

The invitation of the Estonian church initiated by the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew and the rc, was a clear affront of the Russian Orthodox Church and was not discussed before!

They knew and took for granted that the Russian delegation could not stay under such terms and conditions. That is the way brotherly love is meant by the rc and the ecumenical Patriarch.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

Dear Nicolaj, should Jesus have refused to speak with the Samaritan lady at the well? It seems to me as graceless to refuse a helping hand offered in good faith, as not to offer one. I have no qualms in accepting hospitality and friendship from people of other faiths. My faith is not put in jeopardy, if anything it is strengthened. Sometimes being forced to consider why I am Orthodox, and not RC or Muslim or whatever, actually helps me clarify ideas in my own mind - I often find myself in friendly discussion as to my decision to become Orthodox; so far, noone has actually followed in my wake, though I am hopeful that one man may.

Still, I have the intuition that our perspectives differ, perhaps like the perspectives of Patriarch Bartholomew differs from the monks on Mt. Athos, and I am thankful that our church has room for all of us,

Happy fasting, Simon

[Andreas Moran]

should Jesus have refused to speak with the Samaritan lady at the well?

Perhaps the difference is that the Samaritan woman thirsted for the truth whereas the RCC and the OC both believe they have it.


a helping hand

What help does the OC need?


I have no qualms in accepting hospitality and friendship from people of other faiths.

This is not about hospitality but cohabitation!

As I read it, paragraph 45 may be some concession, as opposed to Nicolaj's interpretation of it, in that the RCs are prepared to question and look at the role of the bishop of Rome.

[Nina]

Vatican takes step to reabsorb Orthodox Church

Reabsorb? Reabsorb? Reeeaaabsooorb?

Who is the author of this article (because I did not find the link)? Either he is a marionette journalist directed by the fingers of Vatican, or some whatever-colored-cape cardinal. And October 13?

The "orthodox" who attended the Ravena meeting should get a life and attend a 2,000 year course for raising their non-justifiable lack of religious self-esteem.

Euro Temptations is not just a compilation CD.

[Shawn Lazar]

I notice that John Zizioulas (the most well known modern academic Orthodox theologian except perhaps for David Bentley Hart?) was a part of this meeting. Given that Zizioulas is primarily known as a proponent of eucharistic ecclesiology, I wonder if this eucharistic concept of the church was behind the logic of the meeting. Aren't they saying that unity between East and West will grow out of the recognition that each other's celebration of the eucharist is valid?

Many people have criticized Zizioulas' view for failing to sufficiently account for the importance of the Word for the constitution and unity of the church. The Word, of course, refers both to (a) the historical Jesus as being the foundation of the church ('the chief cornerstone", "his body"), and (b) the self-revelation of God in Scripture which is read and preached during the liturgy. Hence, the liturgy has both the Synaxis AND Eucharist, and not just one or the other. By rightly emphasizing both, I wonder if our ecclesiology would better account for the importance of right beliefs and dogmas in the quest for reunification. Perhaps the reason why Ravenna failed to discuss the glaring theological divisions between RC and Orthodoxy reflects a failure to account for the Word in ecclesiology.

[Nina]

I notice that John Zizioulas (the most well known modern academic Orthodox theologian except perhaps for David Bentley Hart?) was a part of this meeting. Given that Zizioulas is primarily known as a proponent of eucharistic ecclesiology, I wonder if this eucharistic concept of the church was behind the logic of the meeting. Aren't they saying that unity between East and West will grow out of the recognition that each other's celebration of the eucharist is valid?

Many people have criticized Zizioulas' view for failing to sufficiently account for the importance of the Word for the constitution and unity of the church. The Word, of course, refers both to (a) the historical Jesus as being the foundation of the church ('the chief cornerstone", "his body"), and (b) the self-revelation of God in Scripture which is read and preached during the liturgy. Hence, the liturgy has both the Synaxis AND Eucharist, and not just one or the other. By rightly emphasizing both, I wonder if our ecclesiology would better account for the importance of right beliefs and dogmas in the quest for reunification. Perhaps the reason why Ravenna failed to discuss the glaring theological divisions between RC and Orthodoxy reflects a failure to account for the Word in ecclesiology.

An orthodox bishop in Boston invites catholic priests, and cardinal for the feast day of St. Andreas in the Orthodox church of Saint Andreas and co-celebrates with them. However the fact that he is a bishop does not justify the co-celebration.

Saint Mark Eugenikos attended too, but he did not recognize the pope as the people who are mentioned in the article did.

[Andreas Moran]

Aren't they saying that unity between East and West will grow out of the recognition that each other's celebration of the eucharist is valid?

By no means all Orthodox would completely agree with that. Depends what you mean by 'valid'. Russian theologians I know say that the RC eucharist lacks the fulness of grace.

[Kris]

It is a question that has puzzled me to some degree. For, in keeping with a Patristic ecclesiology, the result of schism (not to mention heresy) is the loss of apostolicity and sacramental grace - i.e. it is Communion that defines the boundary of the Church.

Therefore, as I understand it, to accept the validity (presence of grace) of Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, etc. sacraments would imply that they were in fact part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (undoubtedly a heresy).

Personally, I do not consider these groups to have sacramental grace, and so it is not these that trouble me. Rather, I am confused as to the status of groups such as the Oriental Orthodox.

Certainly they are in a state of schism - the result of which I mentioned above - yet the Church seems to have always accepted their sacraments to one degree or another. Not as the product of political compromise, ecumenism or economia, but rather in the traditional ("strict" if you will) view of the Orthodox Church.

How is it possible that we can simultaneously view them as being outside the Church while posessing sacramental grace (which it seems that we do)?


BTW: This is not a EO-OO question per se, but a question of an ecclesiological situation of which the OO seem a good example.

[Anthony]

I agree with Fr David that there is no news here, just some editor's idea of a sensational headline.

As for whether the current dialogue is a good thing, I will adopt my favourite Russian saying: "we will live - we will see". I don't see any reason to get excited right now, one way or the other.

[Stuart Dunn]

Reabsorb? Reabsorb? Reeeaaabsooorb?

Who is the author of this article (because I did not find the link)? Either he is a marionette journalist directed by the fingers of Vatican, or some whatever-colored-cape cardinal.

As I understand it, the title "Vatican takes step to reabsorb Orthodox Church" was a misinformed headline from an uninformed evangelical publication (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0), not one from any Catholic or Orthodox publication. If it was a Catholic thought or idea, then even I can't help but laugh at the arrogance of the RC Church, but I hope and pray it wasn't. Because I honestly don't believe any true Catholic is that foolish to think or even classify it as reabsorbtion.

[Anthony]

Thanks, Stuart, for pointing this out. Here is what this newspaper (The Trumpet) has to say about its approach to news publishing:


The Trumpet uses a single overarching criterion that sets it apart from other news sources and keeps it focused like a laser beam on what truly is important. That criterion is prophetic significance. The Trumpet seeks to show how current events are fulfilling the biblically prophesied description of the prevailing state of affairs just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The Trumpet has a long history of accurate forecasting of major global events based on this predictive model, tracing back to the beginnings of the Plain Truth magazine in 1934 under the direction of Herbert W. Armstrong. To explore these forecasts, read our sample issue, called “He Was Right!—Remembering five decades of accurate forecasting by Herbert W. Armstrong.”

All is explained.

[Nina]

As I understand it, the title "Vatican takes step to reabsorb Orthodox Church" was a misinformed headline from an uninformed evangelical publication (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0), not one from any Catholic or Orthodox publication. If it was a Catholic thought or idea, then even I can't help but laugh at the arrogance of the RC Church, but I hope and pray it wasn't. Because I honestly don't believe any true Catholic is that foolish to think or even classify it as reabsorbtion.

Yes, hopefully it is poor journalism, rather than intentional disinformation. Because it really aligned with what the roman pope said about the rest of the churches this year.

[Simon]

I quote:
What help does the OC need?

Dear Andreas, perhaps in the affluent UK where I hail from, the OC (I presume this means Orthodox Church) need no material help. This is not the case where I live. Most Sunday sermons stress the need for more money, our congregations are mostly building workers and maids who send money to their families in Eastern Europe, and so the generosity (yes! Why shouldn't I use the word?) of the RC bishop to provide us with a place to have our liturgy on Sundays is almost essential. The two priests are grateful, NOT obesequious!!!, to get such help. It's easy for people, Nicolaj explicitly, and you implicitly, to say that we could have Churches without the help of the RC, but I've no idea how you would you do it. The main tenet of the sermons on Sunday is that we should donate more money for heating and so on in the areas donated by the RC, so if we didn't at least have the basic accomodation, I can't honestly see how we could have an area at least partially suffiicent for the congregation.

Neither the Moldavian nor the Serbian priest in Vicenza speak English, so unfortunately I can't ask them to corroborate my views, or perhaps my version of their views, on this site, but believe me, brothers and sisters, interfaith dialogue here has a beneficial effect for all of us. Maybe the RC's won't renounce the Filioque tomorrow, but thay are beginning to get to know us better, and above all at layman level, to ask themselves questions; don't belittle our efforts to create a little more harmony and understanding.

Happy fasting! (I'm always a bit frightened I won't be able to go through with it!) Simon

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Simon,

We were at cross purposes- I meant the Orthodox Church as Church, not some local church.


Happy fasting! (I'm always a bit frightened I won't be able to go through with it!)

You're not the only one!

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

Thanks to Stuart for posting the link to the original article.

And yes Nina this is poor journalism! Making a real bad headline which really is not doing much good for the ecumenism at all!

Still there are these facts about the meeting at Ravenna and the things which happened around it. Bishop Hilarion which was send there by the Patriarch always says that it is our task to move towards a common ground with other Christians, but not by giving everything up that the Orthodox Church represents!

To you Simon, here in Vienna, we have several Orthodox Communities which haven't had an proper church themselves, and also from my homeland the Netherlands this is quite common. In this case most have a apartment, a room rented where they celebrate their services! And they save money and after years or decades they build their own church!

We start fasting on the November 28, but all who are already on the way I wish a happy fasting!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Nina]

Nicolaj, here (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/19669CE9.en.aspx)is something interesting.

[Nicolaj]

Nicolaj, here (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/19669CE9.en.aspx)is something interesting.

Oh yes, I like that! Thank you so much for this link.


Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Anthony]

Thank you for the link, which I think is interesting to many of us.



If the Patriarch, does not accept but rejects the suggestions of the Government of the Holy Synod, Arch-hierarchs, priests and lay followers, and insists on the union (of the Churches), then he should be renounced


I think the word "if" is quite important here. The article with which this thread started seems to be a false alarm. If, nonetheless, such a thing does happen, or there is good evidence that it is imminent, then I will be as alarmed as anybody else.

(Sorry, Fr Dcn Matthew, for using italics)

[John King]

Dear all,

My thoughts on this are simplistic, as always, but has any Patriarch ever suggested to Benedict XVI that as Rome fell away from the Holy Mother Church 1000 years ago it might want to consider coming back into the fold, rather that feeding his ego ?

[Olympiada]

Read full article here: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0


I've read a variety of documents regarding the exact interpretation of the postion of Pope in the first several centures, but nothing that proves papal supremecy, except by quite a stretch. In fact, if I remember right, Saint Gregory, even condemned any suggestion of supremecy over other bishops.

What does this recent "joint" document mean for us? What should be done in reponse by the Orthodox faithful?

Basil
That paper is a bad source, it is a Protestant sect, and Orthodox shun it.

[Kosta]

Dear all,

My thoughts on this are simplistic, as always, but has any Patriarch ever suggested to Benedict XVI that as Rome fell away from the Holy Mother Church 1000 years ago it might want to consider coming back into the fold, rather that feeding his ego ?

Yes they have in the encyclical of the E.P. on 1895:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

In fact this is the second one. The four patriatchates also wrote another encyclical entited the encyclical of the eastern Patriarchs in 1848. Both these dicuments were replies to the pope about epistles he wrote on reunification. Unfortunaly many heirarchs have forgotten about these and have become blinded by eccumenism. That is why its the duty of the laity to remind them about the pseudo-council of Florence and how they capitulated to heresy.

Oh, St Mark of Ephesus pray for the guidance of our Shepherds!

[Nicolaj]

Thank you Kosta for this statement!

And you are right, it is our Holy Duty to remind our shepherds about what Orthodoxy is about!

http://orthodoxwiki.org/images/1/17/Mark_of_Ephesus.jpg

Here is St Mark of Ephesus, may our prayers for his intercession be answered!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj, the sinner

[Albert Hein]

Read full article here: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0


I've read a variety of documents regarding the exact interpretation of the postion of Pope in the first several centures, but nothing that proves papal supremecy, except by quite a stretch. In fact, if I remember right, Saint Gregory, even condemned any suggestion of supremecy over other bishops.

What does this recent "joint" document mean for us? What should be done in reponse by the Orthodox faithful?

Basil

Just because you are unfamiliar with the material, does not mean it does not exist. A friend of mine has written a book covering the first 800 years of the Church where he proves, using primary sources, that the popes had a supreme universl jurisdiction over all churches. I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, but the evidence for supremacy and authority seems to be there. But at that time the popes were Orthodox. They are completely apostate today. The book is not yet published. I have read the manuscript form. It is called "Keys over the Christian World," by John Coloraffi. I think his website might still be up (www.ancientpapacy.com (http://www.ancientpapacy.com)). I'm not sure though. I haven't checked it in a while.

[Albert Hein]

Just because you are unfamiliar with the material, does not mean it does not exist. A friend of mine has written a book covering the first 800 years of the Church where he proves, using primary sources, that the popes had a supreme universl jurisdiction over all churches. I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, but the evidence for supremacy and authority seems to be there. But at that time the popes were Orthodox. They are completely apostate today. The book is not yet published. I have read the manuscript form. It is called "Keys over the Christian World," by John Coloraffi. I think his website might still be up (www.ancientpapacy.com (http://www.ancientpapacy.com)). I'm not sure though. I haven't checked it in a while.

I guess its no longer up and running. Someday if he gets the money, the book will be published.

I believe there will eventually be a false union between apostate world "Orthodoxy" and Rome. I believe the recent union between ROCA and Moscow, is just the beginning. The next step Moscow will take, will be union with Rome. They duped ROCA.

[Albert Hein]

Here it is: www.ancientpapacy.org

[Nicolaj]

I don't know where you and your friend take the information you then knit to these assumptions and under which logic and scientific premises you interpret this information, but according to me you are way off with your view that the popes had a supreme universl jurisdiction over all churches.

And believe me, I am familiar with the material.

In Christ, Nicolaj