Comments for Eirenikon

Comment on North American Orthodox-Catholic Response to Ravenna by Michaël de Verteuil

Michaël de Verteuil — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:43:36 +0000

While dormant, the blog is still open. So there is no inherent problem in resurrecting discussion on a three-year old post.

One point I don’t think Orthodox have internalized enough is that Catholic theology does not acknowledge the existence of “conciliarity at the patriarchal level.” Rome has never (and I mean “never”) bought into the idea of the Pentarchy as a constitutive element of the Church’s esse, while many Orthodox ecclesiologists appear to take it as a given. In contrast, in Catholic theology primacy and conciliarity at the universal are both dominical and thus core features of the Church’s constitution.

Regional primacy (including Rome’s) and conciliarity at the regional level have been sanctioned both by tradition and by ecumenical councils. While they weren’t mandated by Christ, they remain part of the Church’s lived ecclesial experience. The idea of patriarchal conciliarity (e.g. Pentarchy) on the other hand, in the Catholic view is neither dominical nor conciliar, and has never had any practical reality in that Rome has never presided over or even participated in such an exercise either in person, through legates or by correspondence. Whatever its validity in post-schism Orthodoxy, in the context of the undivided Church, the notion is strictly an a-historical fiction. It may be that the Ravenna document went too far in this direction, and that this explains the Roman reserve on the issue.

Comment on North American Orthodox-Catholic Response to Ravenna by Will Cohen

Will Cohen — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:06:20 +0000

Oops — I just noticed that I posted a response to a three year old thread! Shows how non-blog savvy I am. Sorry for the mistake.

Comment on North American Orthodox-Catholic Response to Ravenna by Will Cohen

Will Cohen — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:51:02 +0000

In case it’s of interest, there is an article in volume 53, number 4 (2009) of the St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly entitled, “The Concept of ‘Sister Churches’ in Orthodox-Catholic Relations in the 12th and 21st Centuries”, which touches on some of the issues that have been raised in this thread. (I wrote it; also a dissertation on the subject, so I am well aware of my potential of sounding annoying and tendentious.) One way of boiling down what I say there is that the CDF’s 2000 Note seems to me to risk pitting primacy and conciliarity (especially conciliarity at the patriarchal level) against one another rather than affirming their complementarity, as is done for example in the 2007 Ravenna Statement of the Joint International Commission. The latter part of the 20th century, in general, seemed to be the era of emphasizing conciliarity in all sorts of ways (communion ecclesiology, etc) and saw the RCC do a certain amount of reorienting of itself ecclesiologically eastward, while the 21st has seen a reemphasis on primacy and challenged the Orthodox East to open itself to western gifts, in particular the gift of primacy at the universal level. It would be a shame, though, if in the process of bringing primacy rightly back to the fore, conciliarity would then be relegated to the margins somehow — as I think has somewhat occurred with the overly tight and not always entirely sound restrictions on the use of “sister churches” and also with the removal of the title of patriarch of the west from the Annuario Pontificio. But on the other hand a healthy synthesis seems more and more within reach and is suggested by numerous theologians both Catholic and Orthodox. Adam DeVille’s recent book Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy (which I figure has been mentioned on this blog) does a nice job of showing this.

Comment on A request by evagrius

evagrius — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:25:24 +0000

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodoxy-and-the-roman-papacy-ut-unum-sint-and-the-prospects-of-east-west-unity/14624346

A new book out on this semingly eternal subject.

Comment on Bishop Hilarion: God’s Mercy is immeasurable by Frank Hatch

Frank Hatch — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:35:03 +0000

“Hear and hear, but do not understand,
see and see, but do not perceive,”

To break the restriction of a linear time sequence, the Lost need empirical data – uncorrupted, honest data. However, the Lost have filtered all their data with a scientific-religious presumption: a finite universe with a finite number of dimensions.

The Lost do not understand, nor do they perceive their conflict with the Infinite Universe and Infinite number of dimensions…

“…nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it…”

Best Regards,

Frank Hatch
Initial Mass Displacements

Comment on Abp. Hilarion (Alfeyev) on Christian unity by Timothy Flanders

Timothy Flanders — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:33:21 +0000

Proverbs 10:12 “Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.”

Comment on A request by priest's wife

priest's wife — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 06:54:07 +0000

How about once a week? ;)

Comment on A request by princetaliesin

princetaliesin — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:56:59 +0000

Bonjour Irenaeus

Vous faites une belle et grande œuvre.
Ce n’est pas tant la quantité que la qualité des notes qui fait un bon blog. Apaisez vos craintes et gardez courage.
Christus omnia vincit.
Notre Seigneur et Notre Dame vous gardent toujours.

You do a great and important work.
I think that it is rather quality than quantity of the posts that makes a good and interesting blog. Keep courage and appease your heart. Christus omnia vincit.

May Our Lord and Our Lady keep you always.

Comment on Abp. Hilarion (Alfeyev) on Christian unity by joe

joe — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:59:28 +0000

Wow, Diane, that’s so helpful. And so Christian!

Comment on A request by Alice C. Linsley

Alice C. Linsley — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:17:21 +0000

I will help by praying. God knows what our needs are before we even ask.

God bless you, my friend!