Friday, November 16, 2007

CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DOCUMENT ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH



Taken form the Vatican Information Service:

CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DOCUMENT ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

VATICAN CITY, NOV 15, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was the final document of the plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The meeting was held in the Italian city of Ravenna from October 8 to 14 under the presidency of Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and His Excellency Ioannis, metropolitan of Pergamo.

The title of the final document is: "Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority."

Commenting on the 46-paragraph-long text in an interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Kasper affirmed that "the document speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity (or synodality) at the local (i.e., diocesan), regional and universal levels. The important development is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have said yes, this universal level of the Church exists and also at the universal level there is conciliarity, synodality and authority; this means that there is also a Primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the bishop of Rome."

"However," the cardinal continued, "we did not talk of the privileges of the bishop of Rome, we merely indicated the praxis for future debate. This document is a modest first step and as such it gives rise to hope, but we must not exaggerate its importance.

"The next time," added the president of the pontifical council, "we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium. Then we must also talk of the second millennium, of Vatican Councils I and II, and this will not be easy; the road is very long and difficult."

The cardinal also commented on the fact that the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church had abandoned the plenary assembly, explaining that "there was an inter-Orthodox problem over the recognition of the autonomous Church of Estonia" about which Moscow and Constantinople take different views.

"This is an inter-orthodox question," he reiterated, "and we cannot interfere; yet we are extremely sad and concerned because it is important to us that the Russian Orthodox Church should also participate in our future dialogue. Hence we cannot interfere but we wish to ask Moscow and Constantinople to do their best to find a solution, a compromise.

"If they wish," the cardinal concluded, "we can also facilitate this solution, either at the bilateral level between Moscow and Constantinople, or at the pan-Orthodox level, but there is not doubt that we want the Russian Orthodox Church to anticipate. It is a very important Church, we do not want to dialogue without the Russians and we wish to work to achieve this aim."
CON-UC/RAVENNA DOCUMENT/KASPER VIS 071115 (470)

VATICAN CITY, NOV 15, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was the final document of the plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The meeting was held in the Italian city of Ravenna from October 8 to 14 under the presidency of Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and His Excellency Ioannis, metropolitan of Pergamo.

The title of the final document is: "Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority."

Commenting on the 46-paragraph-long text in an interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Kasper affirmed that "the document speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity (or synodality) at the local (i.e., diocesan), regional and universal levels. The important development is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have said yes, this universal level of the Church exists and also at the universal level there is conciliarity, synodality and authority; this means that there is also a Primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the bishop of Rome."

"However," the cardinal continued, "we did not talk of the privileges of the bishop of Rome, we merely indicated the praxis for future debate. This document is a modest first step and as such it gives rise to hope, but we must not exaggerate its importance.

"The next time," added the president of the pontifical council, "we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium. Then we must also talk of the second millennium, of Vatican Councils I and II, and this will not be easy; the road is very long and difficult."

The cardinal also commented on the fact that the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church had abandoned the plenary assembly, explaining that "there was an inter-Orthodox problem over the recognition of the autonomous Church of Estonia" about which Moscow and Constantinople take different views.

"This is an inter-orthodox question," he reiterated, "and we cannot interfere; yet we are extremely sad and concerned because it is important to us that the Russian Orthodox Church should also participate in our future dialogue. Hence we cannot interfere but we wish to ask Moscow and Constantinople to do their best to find a solution, a compromise.

"If they wish," the cardinal concluded, "we can also facilitate this solution, either at the bilateral level between Moscow and Constantinople, or at the pan-Orthodox level, but there is not doubt that we want the Russian Orthodox Church to anticipate. It is a very important Church, we do not want to dialogue without the Russians and we wish to work to achieve this aim."
CON-UC/RAVENNA DOCUMENT/KASPER VIS 071115 (470)

3 comments:

PRAXIS OBNOXIA said...

I have been studying theologies for a while now. Both Eastern and Western. I collected a large mass of knowledge in sacramental, moral, and dogmatic theology. I have a wide collection of books, so I feel I can handle most objections when asked, though I am no card carrying apologist with a Pontifical Catechis certificate.

You hear various arguments, on grace and effiacy of works: faith alone or baptism and faith. Well baptism is a good work, produced by Jesus Christ. So I believe in Faith as a work, and effected by an external rite called baptism -- which is the sacrament of faith.

Yet, I find it very interesting and even obnoxious that the New Church of Vatican II (which claims to be the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church) has established a foreign rite to suppress the traditionl Latin Tridentine Catholic praxis (from the Council of Trent) to the point of invalidating the grace of baptism in this Novus Ordo rite. I'm not sure what is the mainstream Protestant stance on this new baptism?

In fact, I recently read this new scholarly book on the topic entitled "Praxis Obnoxia: A Moral-Theological Conclusion On The New Modernist Rite of Baptism."

http://www.lulu.com/content/3824207

I am very impressed with it, and I cannot refute its arguments, scholarship -- tons of quotes from theologians, doctors, councils, and Popes. Basically, the book proves the new rite of baptism is null and void--that means there is no valid baptism in the Vatican II church, and thus no valid sacraments and no salvation in that sect. It seems "very weird", I admit at first, but the facts are the facts, and I had to read the book a few times to really grasp the significance of what has happened since 1960s. Once you get the book you cannot put it down, it is so intense in scholastic volume.

I even spent some days of hours in the Gordon-Conwell College libraries to talk to some doctors, and even had a debate with a Greek Orthodox Professor from Harvard on this topic of conditional rebaptism or economia or oikonomia.

Not sure what's your stance? It seems Saint Cyprian would of rebaptized people coming from the New Church to the traditional Orthodox Catholic Church of the Romans.

Any opinions on this? A book review perhaps? Are you familar with "Praxis Obnoxia"? I must say this is a "Hot Topic" with Traditionalists and Conservatives.

gallicman1 said...

I do not feel that I have studied the subject enough to quote the Church Father. However, I believe that if Baptism is perform with the proper intent, species and form that it is valid whoever may administer the rite.
With regards the other Sacraments I would strongly recommend Tumultuous Times written by Fr. Francisco Radecki and Fr. Dominic Radecki. This is a superb work detailing the demise of the Sacraments in the New Vatican Church ( Novus Order). The book also profile major Councils within the concept of Roman Catholic Tradition.
I hate to pass judgment on the New Vatican Church. As the scripture state \s: “By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matt 7:16.

gallicman1 said...

I do not feel that I have studied the subject enough to quote the Church Father. However, I believe that if Baptism is perform with the proper intent, species and form that it is valid whoever may administer the rite.
With regards the other Sacraments I would strongly recommend Tumultuous Times written by Fr. Francisco Radecki and Fr. Dominic Radecki. This is a superb work detailing the demise of the Sacraments in the New Vatican Church ( Novus Order). The book also profile major Councils within the concept of Roman Catholic Tradition.
I hate to pass judgment on the New Vatican Church. As the scripture state \s: “By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matt 7:16.