Article about a restoration of East-West communion


#1

Restoring Communion between East and West

A remarkable symposium at the Vatican—held in 2003, with the proceedings published late last year—both illustrated the difficulties and illuminated the possible paths to unity.

More…

+T+
Michael


#2

[quote=Hesychios]Restoring Communion between East and West

A remarkable symposium at the Vatican—held in 2003, with the proceedings published late last year—both illustrated the difficulties and illuminated the possible paths to unity.

More…

+T+
Michael

[/quote]

Dear Michael, I’ve read through this twice and I have to say that I did not find it at all remarkable. I found it dissapointing.

I found that the author is unbalanced in his presentation and gives much more weigth and credibility to the Catholic side while devoting little space to the Orthodox contribution. And where he does report on what the Orthodox had to say he frames it negatively.

Here are examples which demonstrate the author’s condescending tone towards the Orthodox, and which remove his article from the field of honest reporting to that of subtle propaganda:

Vlassios Phidas, a theology professor at the University of Athens, tried to demonstrate that papal primacy is an exclusively Western development of the second millennium

Father V. Nicolae Durä, a Romanian Orthodox theologian, sharply contrasted the language of Catholic magisterial teaching on papal primacy with “the canonical legislation of the ecumenical councils in the first millennium.” He dutifully restated the few canons concerning the status of the Church of Rome and explained the traditional Orthodox view (which he considers inadequate) that these “define” a primacy of honor, not of governance.


#3

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Dear Michael, I’ve read through this twice and I have to say that I did not find it at all remarkable. I found it dissapointing.

I found that the author is unbalanced in his presentation and gives much more weigth and credibility to the Catholic side while devoting little space to the Orthodox contribution. And where he does report on what the Orthodox had to say he frames it negatively.

Here are examples which demonstrate the author’s condescending tone towards the Orthodox, and which remove his article from the field of honest reporting to that of subtle propaganda:

Vlassios Phidas, a theology professor at the University of Athens, tried to demonstrate that papal primacy is an exclusively Western development of the second millennium

Father V. Nicolae Durä, a Romanian Orthodox theologian, sharply contrasted the language of Catholic magisterial teaching on papal primacy with “the canonical legislation of the ecumenical councils in the first millennium.” He dutifully restated the few canons concerning the status of the Church of Rome and explained the traditional Orthodox view (which he considers inadequate) that these “define” a primacy of honor, not of governance.

[/quote]

I don’t see anything so bad about those statements. They do not seem biased to me. Just because the author said “tried to demonstrate”, does not imply anything.


#4

they didn’t seem biased to me either, I think that if you want to try and read into them that way, I suppose you could…but you could read into anything if you really wanted to.


#5

[quote=jimmy]I don’t see anything so bad about those statements. They do not seem biased to me. Just because the author said “tried to demonstrate”, does not imply anything.
[/quote]

No? Let’s reverse it then, to make the bias clearer.

“At the Symposium Cardinal Ratzinger *tried to demonstrate * that the Pope is infallible.”


#6

I realize that there was a bias in the reporting, surprisingly balanced in some ways though. I did expect some bias coming from a specifically Catholic source writing to a specifically Catholic audience. Similarly, in my opinion an Orthodox source writing for an Orthodox audience would be expected to have a certain ‘take’ too!

I felt that it was still worth bringing this up for review, the term ‘remarkable’ was actually not mine, it was courtesy of the author. I just wanted to elevate everyones’ awareness to the dialogue and the type of things discussed there.

Personally I have the feeling that discussions of this type will actually go nowhere for years to come because the parties are, and will remain, very far apart on the issues of Papal Primacy/Supremacy.

Included was a neat little insight into the dynamics behind Vatican Council I.

+T+
Michael


#7

[quote=Fr Ambrose]No? Let’s reverse it then, to make the bias clearer.

“At the Symposium Cardinal Ratzinger *tried to demonstrate *that the Pope is infallible.”
[/quote]

I don’t see the problem. I am trying to demonstrate in this post that there is nothing wrong with the wording. I think you are over analyzing it.

I have no problem with your reversal of wording.


#8

[quote=Hesychios]I realize that there was a bias in the reporting, surprisingly balanced in some ways though. I did expect some bias coming from a specifically Catholic source writing to a specifically Catholic audience. Similarly, in my opinion an Orthodox source writing for an Orthodox audience would be expected to have a certain ‘take’ too!

I felt that it was still worth bringing this up for review, the term ‘remarkable’ was actually not mine, it was courtesy of the author. I just wanted to elevate everyones’ awareness to the dialogue and the type of things discussed there.

Personally I have the feeling that discussions of this type will actually go nowhere for years to come because the parties are, and will remain, very far apart on the issues of Papal Primacy/Supremacy.

Included was a neat little insight into the dynamics behind Vatican Council I.

+T+
Michael
[/quote]

I personally don’t think it will go anywhere for a long time either because one side is going to have secede there stance on papal authority. That is the only doctrine that is keeping the Churches apart. All else depends on that.


#9

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Dear Michael, I’ve read through this twice and I have to say that I did not find it at all remarkable. I found it dissapointing.

I found that the author is unbalanced in his presentation and gives much more weigth and credibility to the Catholic side while devoting little space to the Orthodox contribution. And where he does report on what the Orthodox had to say he frames it negatively.

Here are examples which demonstrate the author’s condescending tone towards the Orthodox, and which remove his article from the field of honest reporting to that of subtle propaganda:

Vlassios Phidas, a theology professor at the University of Athens, tried to demonstrate that papal primacy is an exclusively Western development of the second millennium

Father V. Nicolae Durä, a Romanian Orthodox theologian, sharply contrasted the language of Catholic magisterial teaching on papal primacy with “the canonical legislation of the ecumenical councils in the first millennium.” He dutifully restated the few canons concerning the status of the Church of Rome and explained the traditional Orthodox view (which he considers inadequate) that these “define” a primacy of honor, not of governance.

[/quote]

Sorry Padre but the truth’s the truth. Phidas could only “try” to demonstrate that papal primacy is an exclusively Western development because the over-whelming majority of early Church Fathers and Councils recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.


#10

[quote=SFH]Sorry Padre but the truth’s the truth. Phidas could only “try” to demonstrate that papal primacy is an exclusively Western development because the over-whelming majority of early Church Fathers and Councils recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
[/quote]

May I know if I am in a discussion with a Christian, a Roman Catholic, an Anglican…? Your profile < forums.catholic.com/member.php?u=18537 > does not list any religion for you.

I enjoy this Forum but primarily I want to hear and discuss the Roman Catholic view.


#11

[quote=Fr Ambrose]May I know if I am in a discussion with a Christian, a Roman Catholic, an Anglican…? Your profile < forums.catholic.com/member.php?u=18537 > does not list any religion for you.

I enjoy this Forum but primarily I want to hear and discuss the Roman Catholic view.
[/quote]

Do you really think anyone other than a Catholic would put this much effort into defending the Catholic faith?:wink:

Quick point: The term Roman Catholic was coined by Elizabethean Protestants to distinguish Anglican Catholics from Roman Catholics. No official document from the Vatican (that I know of) has ever adopted the term “Roman Catholic.” From a Catholic perspective, there’s only one Catholic Church and it’s the one in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Pax et bonum.


#12

SHF: the term “Roman Catholic” was coined by Elizabethean Anglicans who pretended that there were three branches of Catholicism: “Anglican,” “Roman,” and “Greek.” The Vatican has never recognized that distinction or the name “Roman Catholic.”

This is an old canard. It is simple enough to demolish by referencing papal and conciliar statements prior to the 16th century and the English Reformation.

Closer to our own times and we can look at the document of 1965 concerning the Roman Catholic-Orthodox anathemas…

"…facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the **Roman Catholic Church ** and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople…

"divine grace which today is leading the **Roman Catholic Church ** and the Orthodox Church…

“…more recent differences between the **Roman Catholic Church ** and the Orthodox Church.”

"…They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire **Roman Catholic Church ** and the Orthodox Church…

praiseofglory.com/lifting.htm


#13

[quote=SFH]Do you really think anyone other than a Catholic would put this much effort into defending the Catholic faith?:wink:

Quick point: The term Roman Catholic was coined by Elizabethean Protestants to distinguish Anglican Catholics from Roman Catholics. No official document from the Vatican (that I know of) has ever adopted the term “Roman Catholic.” From a Catholic perspective, there’s only one Catholic Church and it’s the one in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Pax et bonum.
[/quote]

Actually, the term is on a church near my house…Christ the King, Roman Catholic Church.


#14

Moreover, the “filioque” has absolutely nothing to do with Arius. That statement is quite absurd!

Why do you say that?! The connection could not be stronger!

The *filioque * was first introduced in Spain in an effort to combat the Arianism which was plaguing the Church there.

Matthew gave you one reference to this from the website of the Catholic Bishops of the US. The Arian connection with the introduction of the filioque is simply an historical fact.

"The Filioque: a church-dividing issue?"
An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm
and
scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp


#15

[quote=SFH]Do you really think anyone other than a Catholic would put this much effort into defending the Catholic faith?:wink:

[/quote]

Yes, some people just enjoy the argumentation. So I do not think that you are a Roman Catholic, and your answer is not an answer.

Irenicist says that she is only a nominal Catholic.

GAssisi lists himself as a Christian only.

Both enjoy arguing for the Catholic position.

Do you mind being upfront about it? There are so many trolls who inhabit religious Forums and waste people’s time.


#16

[quote=Fr Ambrose]This is an old canard.
[/quote]

I disagree. For an excellent discussion of the use of the term Roman Catholic, see the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org.

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm


#17

[quote=Catholic Tom]Actually, the term is on a church near my house…Christ the King, Roman Catholic Church.
[/quote]

See newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm


#18

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Why do you say that?! The connection could not be stronger!

The *filioque *was first introduced in Spain in an effort to combat the Arianism which was plaguing the Church there.

Matthew gave you one reference to this from the website of the Catholic Bishops of the US. The Arian connection with the introduction of the filioque is simply an historical fact.

"The Filioque: a church-dividing issue?"
An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm
and
scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp
[/quote]

I think you have to draw a distinction between the origin of the filioque, which many argue was introduced to combat Arianism, and the substance of the theology behind the phrase, which treats of the relationship between the Blessed Persons of the Holy Trinity. It seemed to me that some of our Orthodox brethren were suggesting that the filioque was part of the Arian heresy rather than a phrase introduced to oppose the Arian heresy and explain the relationship among the Persons of the Blessed Trinity.


#19

[quote=SFH]I disagree. For an excellent discussion of the use of the term Roman Catholic, see the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org.

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
[/quote]

An ignorant article.

Please pull up the references in papal documents from times long before the Anglican Reformation. You will discover that the Popes rejoice in the use of “Roman Catholic” and use it again and again.


#20

[quote=Fr Ambrose]An ignorant article.

Please pull up the references in papal documents from times long before the Anglican Reformation. You will discover that the Popes rejoice in the use of “Roman Catholic” and use it again and again.
[/quote]

The burden is on you my friend. You’re the one challenging the article.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.