Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission -Vienna,September 2010

[Irish Hermit]

03 November 2009, 10:01

Next session of Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission to be held in Vienna in September 2010

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=6606
 
Belgrade, November 3, Interfax - Next session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will be held in September 2010.

Participants in the Commission previous session in October 2009 discussed the document on "the role of the Pope of Rome in the first millennium," head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk said in his interview to the Ras-Prizren Diocese website, Kosovo.

"This text hasn't been published, we studied only a part of it, and thus I can't assess it. I can only say that we have lots of critical remarks and I'm not sure all Orthodox Churches will be happy about the text," Archbishop Hilarion said.

According to him, "it will clear out at the Commission's next session" in September 2010 in Vienna.

The Archbishop also reminded that the Russian Orthodox Church did not participate in the Ravenna Document summing up the decisions of the Joint Commission in October 2007 in Ravenna dedicated to the nature of authority in the Ecumenical Church. Then the Moscow Patriarchate representatives accused Vatican of lobbying a Catholic model of papal administration on Orthodox world.

"The Ravenna document is the text adopted without participation of the Russian Orthodox Church, we didn't approve of it, we didn't sign and never will," Archbishop Hilarion said.

[Michał Kalina]

What's the fuss about that Ravenna statement?

[Papist]

Oh Geesh. I am wondering if these dialogues will lead anywhere.

[Asteriktos]

mike,

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but you can read it for yourself at this location. I'm just now reading it.

[Papist]

mike,

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but you can read it for yourself at this location. I'm just now reading it.

I read the document and I don't think we are any  closer resolving our issues than before.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

THe problem with Ravenna seems to lie in paragraph 44:

"44. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church."

In shorthand, it says that the relationship between a diocesan and his presbyters is akin to the relationship between a metropolitan and his bishops, that of a patriarch and his metropolitans, and finally that of the bishop of Rome and the other patriarchs.

Since the paragraph closes affirming the standard sacramental equality of every bishop, it is clear that the previous sets are about administrative relationships. In the Orthodox Church, there is a vast difference between the relationship of a diocesan and his presbyters and the relationship amongst bishops. Ergo, this paragraph seems to say that while each bishop is equal, some are more equal than others.

[Papist]

THe problem with Ravenna seems to lie in paragraph 44:

"44. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church."

In shorthand, it says that the relationship between a diocesan and his presbyters is akin to the relationship between a metropolitan and his bishops, that of a patriarch and his metropolitans, and finally that of the bishop of Rome and the other patriarchs.

Since the paragraph closes affirming the standard sacramental equality of every bishop, it is clear that the previous sets are about administrative relationships. In the Orthodox Church, there is a vast difference between the relationship of a diocesan and his presbyters and the relationship amongst bishops. Ergo, this paragraph seems to say that while each bishop is equal, some are more equal than others.

Perhaps the idea of the bishop being protos in his own diocese is analogously, not literally, similar to the relationship between the bishop and metropolitan. At least that's how I read it.

[Asteriktos]

Section 42 might also not be to the liking of Archbishop Hilarion, considering that the East did not sit around waiting for Rome's approval before accepting Ecumenical Councils or the canons from them. For instance, I don't see how anyone could argue that Rome was "closely involved in the process of decision-making" of the Second Ecumenical Council. Rome wasn't even in communion with the bishops who presided over the Council.
 

[Michał Kalina]

Thank you all for the explanation. 44th paragraph is really strange.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission -Vienna,September 2010