Thursday, November 05, 2009

US Catholic, Orthodox prelates criticize Cardinal Kasper’s milestone Ravenna document

Abandoning the diplomatic language typical of ecumenical pronouncements, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, chaired by Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans and Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, has issued a candid critique of the 2007 “Ravenna document,” a modest milestone in Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical relations.

The Ravenna document, while not purporting to be the Church’s official teaching, was issued by the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, chaired by Cardinal Walter Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis of Pergamon. A month after the document was issued, Cardinal Kasper told other cardinals that “for the first time the Orthodox representatives recognized a universal level of the Church and admitted that at this level there also exists a Protos, a Primate, who can only be the Bishop of Rome according to the taxis [order] of the ancient Church. All the participants are aware that this is only a first step and that the journey toward full ecclesial communion will be long and difficult; yet, with this document we have set a base for future dialogue.”

After praising aspects of the Ravenna document, the North American Catholic and Orthodox participants in ecumenical dialogue issued their candid critique:
Read the rest here.


George Patsourakos said...

To say that the primate of a universal Christian Church must be the Bishop of Rome is something that needs clarification. Why could the Patriarch of Constantinople not become the primate of a universal Christian Church?

Anastasia Theodoridis said...

Why are Catholics so consistently so over-optimistic about reunion with the Orthodox? Are we giving them the wrong signals, or is it just wishful thinking on their part, or what?

David said...

I think that contemporary Roman Catholics are like Anglicans, they want unity so bad they are willing to lie to themselves about the divisions that remain. I will never accept the treasury of merit. It is not Orthodox.

VSO said...

Doesn't this remind anyone of a time in their lives when an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend realizing their mistake tried to get back with you?

John (Ad Orientem) said...



Anastasia Theodoridis said...

No, because I don't think the mistakes have been realized.

left said...

παιδια καλημερα απο ελλαδα.
Ειμαι ο Λευτερης Κοσμιδης ζω στη Θεσσαλονικη και καταγομαι απο την Καστορια.
Σχετικως με το θεμα να σας πληροφορησω πως τα λαθος μυνηματα σου λαμβανουν οι καθολικοι προερχονται απο τους κυκλους του οικουμενικου πατριαρχειου.
Φιλοδοξια , απουσια Ορθοδοξου Βιωματος , ο πιστος λαος ανησυχει γιατι φερονται οι αρχιερεις μας εν ονοματι μιας αγαπης, να ειναι ετοιμοι για ανιστορητες παραχωρησεις.
Ευχαριστω για τον χωρο και τον χρονο σας.

Bob Glassmeyer said...

Here's one Catholic who's not so optimistic. So much of the "union fever" with Catholics and other Western Christians seeks unity at the expense of the Truth, and it is a false unity.

We Catholics have been fed a load of crap in the wake of Vatican II, and some of us are fed up. My alma mater, the Pontifical College Josephinum, is working very hard to correct many of the wrongs that have been done.

We Catholics need to spend more time learning from the Orthodox than by playing nice with all this feel-good reunion crap.

Was it St. John of Kronstadt (please correct me, I'm probably wrong!) who said, "Let there be unity, BUT AS CHRIST WILLS IT." ?

contrarian said...

"To say that the primate of a universal Christian Church must be the Bishop of Rome is something that needs clarification. Why could the Patriarch of Constantinople not become the primate of a universal Christian Church?"

First, Constantinople has never had any apostolic significance. The invention that St. Andrew founded that see was just that, an invention. No serious scholar would back it up. That is why the arguments for primacy in the Council of Chalcedon were based on political grounds

Second, all the arguments raised in favor of the "primacy" of Constantinople could very well apply to Moscow so between them, the latter would have better arguments in its favor in the present times.

Third, while some may argue that Roman primacy as practiced is questionable, there is no question that Rome exercised primacy during apostolic times and to the present. Constantinople has a lot of catching up to do.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Just a reminder. Comments should be posted in English. Sadly my ability to translate Greek is very poor. (From what I was able to discern there is nothing objectionable in your comment.)


Anastasia Theodoridis said...

"Left's" post says, roughly, that the [Orthodox] hierarchy and the
Ecumenical Patriarch, acting ostensibly in the name of love, but with vainglory and lack of an Orthodox lifestyle, are giving Catholics the false impression that the Orthodox are ready to give up everything they have historically held dear.