Fr. Thomas Hopko's lecture - what do you think?

[MariaRegina]

Many Anglicans see our legitimacy as being tided to a split church - If you reunite with Rome, and we don't also, we have left the now unified Church.

The Anglicans have issues that have been addressed in another thread, namely:

(1) Ordination of women/lesbians to the ranks of priests and bishops

(2) Ordination of openly gay men as priests and bishops.​

These problems prevent unity with Rome and Orthodoxy.

There are Anglican parishes and clergymen who are converting to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Those doors are always open to those who are repentant.




Honestly, I don't see any genuine conversion and reunion of the Churches ... at least not in my lifetime.
I suppose we will only truly be united in the Lord once we reach heaven.

 

[latinorthodox]

Honestly, I don't see any genuine conversion and reunion of the Churches ... at least not in my lifetime.
I suppose we will only truly be united in the Lord once we reach heaven.

i agree.while some may say that there is no desire of unity on behalf of the orthodox church because of human interests and hunger for power,i could say the same thing about the catholic obsession over the pope's supremacy.
some may say that what truly matters are the essentials of faith,not cultural aspects such as language,calendar,forms of liturgy etc.,which are artificial differences created by men.that we should establish wich are essential and which are not to the faith,and then we shall have unity.well,sadly,after 1000 years of division,these cultural differences have grown really big,so,mixed up with a few(or not?)dogmatic innovations), it would be ridiculous to claim we could just whipe them out.even if church leaders would eventualy reach a consensus,it could take some 100 years or more for the consensus to be fully understood by the less theologicaly informed crowd.
i honestly don't think orthodox people would reject unity
because of pride or incapabillity to forgive.it's just that they believe in their hearts the orthodox church is the Church,thus,complete.and the Church doesn't need to unite with anything.it's those who left that need to return..

 

[gtsecc]

Don't you think it is ideal to have the Bishop of the See of Rome at least as first amoung equals, or at least in the church?
Yes/no?

 

[latinorthodox]

i'd say no,but i'm not really sure about the meaning of "first among equals".i,personally,don't think he alone should have the last word on matters of faith,because those should be established with unanimity among all bishops of the ancient sees.do you conssider it ideal?

 

[latinorthodox]

i'd say no,but i'm not really sure about the meaning of "first among equals".i,personally,don't think he alone should have the last word on matters of faith,because those should be established with unanimity among all bishops of the ancient sees.if "first among equals" is just an honorific title,than fine by me.what is your opinion on this matter?

 

[latinorthodox]

ooo....2 posts i hate my computer

 

[gtsecc]

i'd say no,but i'm not really sure about the meaning of "first among equals".i,personally,don't think he alone should have the last word on matters of faith,because those should be established with unanimity among all bishops of the ancient sees.do you conssider it ideal?

Zizioulas seems to be sayign there is precedent for some sort fo Primacy.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Don't you think it is ideal to have the Bishop of the See of Rome at least as first amoung equals, or at least in the church?
Yes/no?

Yes. What we have now is not ideal. (But God is holding it together out of sheer grace)

 

[Xpycoctomos]

i'd say no,but i'm not really sure about the meaning of "first among equals".i,personally,don't think he alone should have the last word on matters of faith,because those should be established with unanimity among all bishops of the ancient sees.if "first among equals" is just an honorific title,than fine by me.what is your opinion on this matter?

What's the purpose if it is just honorific? It used to mean something. Certainly not what Rome has made of it (even many Roman Theologians will admit to this... including the current Pope to an extent) but I don't think it's what we have UNmade of it either. Otherwise it's just a useless title.

 

[choirfiend]

BTW: We were told by our Orthodox Priests that the proper way to address Priests and Bishops is by using the full saint's name and not an abbreviation out of respect for the saint.

For example, we would never address the Antiochian Bishop as Bishop JOE. It just isn't respectful. Most people in my parish address each other using their full Christian name again honoring the saints whose names they bear.

The idea of using abbreviations is a western idea.

This may be, but when someone asks you to call them something or introduces themselves with a certain name, to call them something else out of "righteousness" would be in error. A shortened version of a name does not immediately denote disrepect--after all, God is Abba, Daddy, and in Russian we call the priest Papa and the priest's wife Mama--Not Father and Mother.

 

[Greg the byzantine]

BTW: We were told by our Orthodox Priests that the proper way to address Priests and Bishops is by using the full saint's name and not an abbreviation out of respect for the saint.

For example, we would never address the Antiochian Bishop as Bishop JOE. It just isn't respectful. Most people in my parish address each other using their full Christian name again honoring the saints whose names they bear.

The idea of using abbreviations is a western idea.

Well I guess it just depends on the priest, Our Priest told us to call him Father Nick

 

[Ilian]

Zizioulas seems to be sayign there is precedent for some sort fo Primacy.

Metropolitan John (the proper way to refer to him) has rightly said that primacy is an inseparable part of synodality. There can be no synod without a primate, and we are a synodal church. Each ruling hierarch is the primate of their respective synod of bishops. His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, does not have a place of mere honorific standing in the church (though some will certainly claim this is the case). The Patriarch of Constantinople has certain, specific prerogatives that are based on the church canons.

The issue of reconciliation of East/West will largely be centered around what form and structure would have to be put in place in order to bring about Eucharistic union. It is not clear to me, in all that I’ve read, what form that can take. I can certainly think of some things that would not work however. The issue is not simply the dogmatic definitions surrounding the Papacy, but the ecclesiology of the Roman church that has itself been built around it.

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

While I think that we should be hopeful and prayerful for the return of Communion with the RCC, I'm not holding out any hope for Protestants, least of all evangelicals. After all, you think one Pope is tough to deal with, try every person being a pope unto themselves. (Did I just say that! Don't tell anyone in my home town!)

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I loved it... Rather than focusing on what was possibly wrong with the article, let's take a look at what was good about it. I think we can use a lot of what he said to remind ourselves that we are not doing a good job at humbling ourselves. i like how this article is about what WE would have to do. We have spoken ad nauseum about what THEY would have to do... what about us? We really don't talk about that because we picture ourselves as this grand cathedral locked with a golden key, studden in diamonds and gold. Why can't we think of ourselves as rather a Homeless shelter? A place whre the weary (including ourselves) are sheltered and given nourishment and that should be ready to adapt to others so they might come in. Sure, they have to adjust... but a homeless shelter doesn't have to adjust to properly welcome and meet the people's needs? It's not a perfect analogy... but for me it seems that we need to humble ourselves and realize what the Church really is.

Here are few of my favorites:

However, before we get to that, my opinion is that what is really required of the Orthodox most of all above everything, is a real desire for unity…to want to be one, to suffer over the division, to weep over it, to carry it around like a sword in your soul that we who claim Christ and praise God in Christ [...] would be divided…

and he follows with...

We have to be ready to do that. Now I have to say that in my opinion, the Orthodox are not ready to do that at all. They don’t even want unity. So I am extremely pessimistic about that point. Why? Because the Orthodox leaders don’t even want unity among the Orthodox, let alone with Roman Catholics or Protestants. It’s obvious. The record is clear. I’m not making this up. This is not my opinion. The Orthodox leadership, and most of the Orthodox people, don’t want unity with others, and they are not ready to give up anything… even the smallest little thing that is clearly not essential to the faith. I feel very strongly that this is true.

This is a zinger... but true:

...we Orthodox ourselves are so weak, miserable and divided, even though we claim a unity of faith (which we have) and a unity of worship (which we have), a unity in saints and tradition (which we have). But to actually do activities that would show this, witness to it, bring it to the world… I don’t think that is there.

I think we suffer here most:

Another thing that the Orthodox definitely have to do (the Catholics have to do it, too, but tonight we are talking about the Orthodox) is be totally ready to forgive everything in the past. Not to look back! Not to figure out who was wrong and who was right and who did what…but to be ready to admit our own sins. We shouldn’t lie. We should be ready to admit when our churches and our church leaders were wrong. I would say, if we were really Christians, that we should be ready to do that, not even saying “if they do it, too!”

I thought this was and interesting point:

People always point out that they fear greater unity because it will cause greater schisms… some of our people won’t go along. But we have schisms anyway. Let’s have them for the right reason.

What do I have in mind? Things like the “filioque” clause in the Creed [the clause in the Nicene Creed that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not only from the Father, but also, “filioque” – from the Son]... If Rome would say it was not there originally, that the way it was explained was not right, we now can agree on certain aspects – I think the Orthodox would have to say, “OK, let them keep it” rather than insist that every last church in Portugal drop the “filioque” before we can have unity.

let's also make sure we read this part;

In other words, the Orthodox may have to go along with something for a while, as long as it’s clear how we understand it.

Isn't that what matters? HOW we understand something? Anyone who has studied langugages for two weeks quickly learn that different cultures are going to express the same idea in different ways. How is this different? (plese read on before responding)...

I'm with Shi-bull... I don't think he is saying anything about accepting heresy. I can't imagine Fr. Thomas saying anything of the sort ever... and if he did, it's not here. He's merely saying (alluding to the fact that) the Catholic Church has already admitted that the way it had been explained was not correct and any Catholic will readily admit it was not there originally. So, they keep it and the Catholic Church works on educating their people that the Spirit does not ETERNALLY proceed from the Son, but, yes, He does from time to time and this has happened in the past. If we say "Yeah, but they added it without our consent"... and what? That was wrong but that was in the past? If it is not giving up on the essentials of the faith, can't we humble ourselves and say "keep it, but for the right reasons". Personally, I think Rome WOULD readily get rid of it if Unity were actually a possibility... but it's not because (in part) we as a Church aren't humble enough to want unity.

I honestly believe that if they got rid of the filioque and even went as absurdly far as to say that the pope were nothing more than another Patriarch that deserves no special honor and in fact deserves the last seat at the table, we would find something else to divide us... (Fr. Hopko gives us a few ideas at the end, just in case any of the others are resolved)

I appreciate greatly this article as I do Fr. Thomas. He is diplomatic but is NOT one to do what it takes to "fit in". He cares about God's work first. He can be very very blunt (especially now that he is retired and no longer the Dean of St Vlad's). Thank you to the OP for bringing this up.

John

PS: Because of people like you and me, unity will never happen. We need to pray about our priorities. If unity will never happen, it's not just because of "them".

 

[Xpycoctomos]

His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, does not have a place of mere honorific standing in the church (though some will certainly claim this is the case). The Patriarch of Constantinople has certain, specific prerogatives that are based on the church canons.

What perrogatives are those? That's not a challenge... I would just love to here about what the modern First among equals can do that others are not called to do. Now, my challenge is, are those perrogatives respected by other leaders? My own Patriarch feels that His should be the first among equals. It's difficult for me to imagine that Moscow is very impressed by Constantinople if they feel themselves more deserving of the title and these perrogatives than the current EP.

 

[QuantaCura]

I think Fr. Hopko explained things accurately. I think the EO can look to the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church-If there were a union, the Eastern Churches would retain their Eastern theology, rites, customs, precepts, fillioque-less creed--everything.

The main issue, as has been pointed out is the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Patriarch's would retain their rites and priviliges but the Bishop of Rome would again preside over the all the bishops and patriarchs. Honestly, in actual practice, the Orthodox faithful and hierarchy would not really experience any changes.

I think its difficult to honestly say that the Bishop of Rome was historically treated as just another bishop, but with a nice title. He is equal to other bishops in that he is ordained with no higher order than that of bishop, but what did it mean that he was due the most honor? What does it mean to honor someone? If you are given more honor than me, what does that mean? Should I defer to your judgment when we have a conflict or does it simply mean you get the best seat at the table? What was the traditional practice pre-schism in such instances? I mean St. Leo unilaterally vetoed one of the canons from Chalcedon--was that legitimate? I guess these would have to be points of honest study.

Then again, Fr. Hopko pointed out that the Orthodox faithful and leaders wouldn't go along with anything anyway (he says they don't even want union with themselves), so maybe it is just a moot point.

 

[Ilian]

Xpycoctomos,

The problem with discussing something like this, on this board should be obvious. You have converts to both camps, Orthodox and Catholic. The former try and distance themselves from Rome, and the latter usually adopt Ultramontanism as their creed. Both sides are getting regular inquiries from other potential converts, so it is natural that they will simply continue to point out the differences (usually exaggerating them) instead of looking for common ground. I think this is understandable.

Regarding your other questions.

Now, my challenge is, are those perrogatives respected by other leaders?

No, the Ecumenical Patriarch is in an extremely weak position.

What perrogatives are those?

See this link. http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Prerogatives_of_the_Ecumenical_Patriarchate

 

[Ilian]

I think Fr. Hopko explained things accurately. I think the EO can look to the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church-If there were a union, the Eastern Churches would retain their Eastern theology, rites, customs, precepts, fillioque-less creed--everything.

I beg to differ. Any sort of reconciliation will actually be radically unlike how the Eastern Catholics are currently governed and structured.

 

[MariaRegina]

This may be, but when someone asks you to call them something or introduces themselves with a certain name, to call them something else out of "righteousness" would be in error. A shortened version of a name does not immediately denote disrepect--after all, God is Abba, Daddy, and in Russian we call the priest Papa and the priest's wife Mama--Not Father and Mother.

Maybe Father Hopko asked people to call him Father Tom at a special youth/college gathering and that is his privilege to do so, but in all the adult retreats he has given which I have attended (too many to count), no one has ever addressed him as Father Tom, not even his brother Priests.

I think I recall only one older teen calling him Father Tom at one retreat and a hush fell over the audience with some sudden intakes of air, like saying, "That really wasn't cool."

People who have studied linguistics, sociolinguistics, or intercultural communications, know about social registers, where one doesn't address the elders or respected clergy with common nicknames or use of the common 'tu.'

In many countries with a polite form of 'vous', the elders are always addressed using the 'vous' form, but only close intimate friends would be addressed with 'tu'. In fact, the elder must give you permission to use the 'tu' form and it can only be used in private meetings, not public gatherings. To call an elder 'tu' in a public gathering would be considered rude. This also applies with familiar names, such as nicknames. You must be given permission and such permission only applies to private gatherings.

For example, at my university, I would never address my professor as "Barbara" at any public gathering, but Professor [surname], unless I met her for a friendly game of golf or at her home for lunch. So it is important to remember the social context, especialy when honoring our clergy. Christian Forums is a public arena, not a private gathering in one's home.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I think Fr. Hopko explained things accurately. I think the EO can look to the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church-If there were a union, the Eastern Churches would retain their Eastern theology, rites, customs, precepts, fillioque-less creed--everything.

The main issue, as has been pointed out is the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Patriarch's would retain their rites and priviliges but the Bishop of Rome would again preside over the all the bishops and patriarchs. Honestly, in actual practice, the Orthodox faithful and hierarchy would not really experience any changes.

I have to say QC, the only problem I have with this is that this is so becasue Rome ALLOWS it. it is a privelidge given to them to "be eastern". Rome woudl have to agree that it is not even within their right to force any kind of change on the Eastern Rites becuase he has no jurisdiction over them. I say this cringingly becuase i don't want to start a big fight and I don't want to sound petty. But this is a big difference and this would have to be understood from the get-go. What I am saying is actually something that I found from the Patriarch of the Melkites where he complains of this in no uncertain terms at a Synod of Bishops conference at the Vatican. It's on the Vatican Webpage. iF you are interested I can PM it to you (I'd have to find it... but I usually can if you give me time).