Rome, Nov. 15, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The final document produced by a joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission is a “modest first step,” Cardinal Walter Kasper told reporters. The 46-paragraph statement approved by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue at an October meeting in Ravenna, Italy, was released in Rome on November 15. While saying that the document shows progress in relations with the Eastern churches, Cardinal Kasper — the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, and the head of the Vatican delegation to the Ravenna conference — cautioned that “we must not exaggerate its importance.”
The Ravenna meeting concentrated on the nature of authority within the Church. The final statement explored the relationships between individual bishops, synods, and patriarchs. In that context, the final document acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome enjoys primacy as the first among patriarchs.
However, the joint theological commission did not explore the nature of the authority that the Pope derives from that primacy. Cardinal Kasper explained that the Ravenna meeting “did not talk of the privileges of the Bishop of Rome; we merely indicated the praxis for future debate.”
The next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox commission will explore the question of papal authority, concentrating on the ways in which that authority was exercised during the first millennium of Christian history, before the schism that separated the Orthodox from Rome. Beyond that discussion, Cardinal Kasper noted, lie questions about the centuries since that schism, and the teachings of Vatican I and Vatican II regarding authority in the Church. “The road is very long and difficult,” the German cardinal said.
Neverthless, the Ravenna document is an important one, Cardinal Kasper said, because “for the first time the Orthodox churches have said: Yes, this universal level of the Church exists.” He continued: “This means that there is also a primate; according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the Bishop of Rome.”
In discussing the work of the Ravenna meeting, Cardinal Kasper observed with regret that the Russian Orthodox Church had not been involved in the deliberations. Delegates from the Moscow patriarchate walked out of the October meeting in a dispute about the inclusion of representatives from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which Moscow has refused to recognize.
Cardinal Kasper noted that the dispute over the Estonian delegation– which was supported by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople– is an “inter-Orthodox question,” in which the Vatican will not interfere. However, he said, the Holy See is anxious to see the problem resolved.
The Russian Orthodox Church is by far the largest of the Eastern churches, and Vatican officials see the relationship with Moscow as a key to future ecumenical advances. As Cardinal Kasper put it, “we do not want to dialogue without the Russians.”
Cathedra Unitatis 
These talks, much like all of the other talks between official Roman Catholic delegations, and official Orthodox delegations, are basically meaningless. At least within much of the Orthodox Church, these talks mean absolutely nothing, and do not have the support of, even a slight majority of the faithful.
Also, these various dialogues debase Orthodoxy-which the Orthodox consider to be the True Church of Christ-as equal to the heterodox confessions of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. This, of course, is the primary reason that the Orthodox faithful are not great supporters of ecumenical dialogues, which have been more akin to a lot of “hot air” more than anything else.
Take for example, these talks on the “primacy of Rome.” Any Orthodox Christian could only truly recognize the “Primacy of Rome” if Rome abandoned her heresies, and returned to Holy Orthodoxy. How could an Orthodox Christian recognize a heretical Pope of Rome possessing “primacy” over the Orthodox Church? While the “documents” produced at these talks state soe nonsense about how the Orthdoox could possibly recongize the “primacy of Rome,” befoe the inkwas dry, Hilarion of Vienna of the Moscow Patirarchate already denied that a primacy as recognized as such by Rome could ever be accepted by the Moscow Patriarchate. Also-look at the “Primacy” of the Church of Constantinople with in the Orthodox Church. While Constantinople itself sees this primacy as more and more akin to a Roman Primacy with the Patriarch of Constantinope “heading” the Orthodox Church as an “Eastern Pope,” none of the other Orthodox Church will accept an “Eastern Papacy” originating in Constantinople, and consider the Primacy as one of “honor” only. The Roman Catholics seem to attach some great importance to the “Primacy” of Constantinople, seeming to think if they can only convince Constantinople, then all Orthodox Churches will automatically swallow whatever it is that Rome wants them to swallow. The sooner Rome learns the foolishiness of this strategy, the sooner things, at least concerning this subject, will approach a state of REALITY.
Finally-in these Roman Catholic – Orthodox dialogues, Rome has denounced Traditionalist Orthodox-the Russian Catacomb Churches, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and the Greek Old Calendarist Churches-as some sort of uncanonical renegades, “not in communion with Constantinople,” and thereby concluding that their voices are of no importance. However, I believe that the majority of the Orthodox faithful, especially in Slavic countries, tend to think more in line with these Traditionalist Churches, especially as regards ecumenism, than they are in agreement with the hoi polloi of Constantinople et al in the ecumenical arena. For this, all I can say is, Thanks be to God!
May Rome AND the Orthodox Churches soon abandon all this nonsense, which produces nothing but reams of paper and hot air, and seek only Holy Orthodoxy!
This, of course, is the primary reason that the Orthodox faithful are not great supporters of ecumenical dialogues
With all due respect…how do you know this? Have you taken a poll of the laos throughout the Orthodox world?
I’m willing to bet that the average yia-yia or baba in the pew (or non-pew as the case may be) does not care a fig about that “Orthodoxy or Death” stuff. I bet most ordinary Orthodox (especially Cradles) would love to be reunited with their Catholic brethren.
I don’t think the anti-ecumenical intransigence so commonly seen on the Internet is at all representative of the Orthodox world.
Just my two cents’ worth…and I am commenting on only the part of your post that I could bear to read.
Diane
A Sombra’s response highlights my conviction that the greatest barrier between East and West is not dogma, not ecclesiology, but animosity. This animosity, so well expressed in the tone of this first comment, does real violence to the will of Christ whose final priestly prayer in John 17 expressed the divine will that we his followers be one. As always, the will of God depends on the real conversion of human hearts in order to be fulfilled. This is the incarnational principle at work: that while God can achieve anything by virtue of his omnipotence, he has designed human nature free and desires that we use our freedom to complete his will for all of creation.
If God is patient enough to wait for the conversion of the many stony hearts, East and West, I suppose we will have to be also. But patience is not enough. We need to commit ourselves to prayer and acts of generosity toward one another that they be converted.
Fr. J., I do not know who you are (wish I did!), but you totally rock!
Thank you!
Diane
I’m willing to bet that the average yia-yia or baba in the pew (or non-pew as the case may be) does not care a fig about that “Orthodoxy or Death” stuff.
Probably not. Nor do they care about things like Ravenna. To them church is their European or Middle Eastern village church or Pennsylvanian industrial town parish – the bishop stops by once in a while like in a Roman Catholic parish – and the ordinary practice of religion there.
I bet most ordinary Orthodox (especially Cradles) would love to be reunited with their Catholic brethren.
Born Orthodox have got nothing to prove so most of them haven’t got Duracell batteries on their shoulders. Granted there’s nasty xenophobic stuff from ‘the old country’. But I think at worst there’s often the benign indifference I just described and at most something approaching what Diane says: ‘Oh, it’s so close – wonderful!’
I don’t think Bishop Hilarion is one of the nasty knee-jerk anti-Westerners. If he says something doesn’t agree with Orthodox theology it probably doesn’t.
Diane,
Father J is a Per Christum (http://blog.ancient-future.net/) contributor…
Do stop by.
Simple
“Finally-in these Roman Catholic – Orthodox dialogues, Rome has denounced Traditionalist Orthodox-the Russian Catacomb Churches, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and the Greek Old Calendarist Churches-as some sort of uncanonical renegades, “not in communion with Constantinople,” and thereby concluding that their voices are of no importance. “
I would very much like to see references that support the assertion that Rome has in any way shape or form made declarations on these groups mired in, shall we say, canonical difficulty…
Can you offer us some citation or reference to where Rome has done as you claim?
May all be one as Jesus Christ prayed to the Father, humility and love for the Lord, that’s the key!
Father J I truly agree with you!
A Sombra wrote —
> Also, these various dialogues debase Orthodoxy-which
> the Orthodox consider to be the True Church of Christ-as
> equal to the heterodox confessions of Roman
> Catholicism and Protestantism.
Why? Why do they not instead merely elevate the Roman Catholics?
> The Roman Catholics seem to attach some great
> importance to the “Primacy” of Constantinople, seeming
> to think if they can only convince Constantinople, then all
> Orthodox Churches will automatically swallow whatever
> it is that Rome wants them to swallow.
I seriously doubt that Rome is that naive. The average RC
priest, or penitent, steeped in the last few centuries of
“submit to what Rome says or else!” from their nuns, may
believe this. But the higher-ups know better than that.
> the Primacy as one of “honor” only.
Fair enough. But what does this mean IN PRACTICE? Often,
it seems, it means that Orthodoxy can agree on no new
issue, i.e. on no question that was not answered by any
of the Church Fathers. And our practice of virtually
completely ignoring the Latin Fathers is to our detriment,
IMHO.
> Any Orthodox Christian could only truly recognize the
> “Primacy of Rome” if Rome abandoned her heresies, and
> returned to Holy Orthodoxy.
> May Rome AND the Orthodox Churches soon abandon all
> this nonsense, which produces nothing but reams of
> paper and hot air, and seek only Holy Orthodoxy!
All well and good. But what does this mean? Which
heresies must Rome abandon? Filioque only? Immaculate
Conception and Vatican-I-style primacy and infallibility?
OK. Purgatory (I’m not sure that was ever “infallibly”
declared a dogma .) What about unleavened bread? Some
have declared this a “heresy” despite good evidence that
it was western Church practice at least as far back as the
middle of the first millenium, when there was no
(centuries-long) schism (there were shorter ones …), and
the Oecumenical Councils certainly did not complain of it
with respect to the Latins, only with respect to the
Armenians. Do you really think that those who are against
dialogue will accept this? Or will they find more heresies
for Rome to rescind before they are Really Really Orthodox?
As sad as I am about this conviction, I am nevertheless
convinced that many Orthodox, both lay and ordained,
_define_ their orthodoxy, in part, with non-communion
with, or frank opposition to, Rome. (The parallel to the
Nestorians and Monophysites, who accepted the heresies
partly so as to be against the Emperor’s church, is I think
a valid one.) A further example is how Orthodoxy has
ceased to be much of a proselytising church (among non-
Christians, I mean), again, as if one could not truly be
orthodox unless one simultaneously is Russian, or
Greek, or Serbian, or .