DOCSLIB.ORG

Primacy and Synodality in the FIRST

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Primacy and Synodality in the FIRST Primacy and Synodality 247 Primacy AND Synodality IN ThE FIRST millennium, IN ThE documents OF RAvenna (2007) AND Chieti (2016) OF ThE JoinT International Commission FOR ThE Theological DialogUE betweeN ThE RomaN Catholic ChurCh AND ThE Orthodox ChurCh Pablo Argárate1 In this article I will refer to the understanding of primacy in the frst millenni- um according to the hermeneutic, historical and theological reading made of it by the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in its last two doc- uments. They study the issue of ecclesial communion from two basic and complementary notions, namely those of synodality and authority. The two documents referred to have such a similarity that they could be presented syn- optically. Both in its structure show a more or less explicit introduction, where the meaning of the two fundamental concepts of synodality / conciliarity and authority / primacy is analyzed. In the main part, the interaction of both in the local, regional, and universal triple dimension is analyzed. Within the latter there is the discussion of the primacy of the church of Rome. The “Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue” between the Catholic Church and the fourteen autocephalous Orthodox churches was created in 1979. The commission has so far held fourteen ses- sions, the frst being in Patmos and Rhodes (Greece) in 1980 and the last one in Chieti (Italy) in 2016. In all of them, fundamental theological aspects have been discussed in the dialogue between both churches, such as the Trinity, sacraments, “uniatism”, the sacramental nature of the Church and its eccle- siological consequences and canonical, the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the frst millennium, as well as primacy and 1 Pablo Argárate is professor and director of the Institute of Ecumenical Theology, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Patrology at the University of Graz. 248 Pablo Argárate synodality in the Church2. It is precisely this last issue that occupies the doc- uments of Ravenna and Chieti that concerns us here. Their historical framework refects the evolution of almost forty years of dialogue with their tensions, especially after Baltimore (2000) and Ravenna (2007). Indeed, after the frst, the commission was virtually paralyzed. In the case of Ravenna, the representatives of the Russian church left the session in disagreement before the fnal document was drafted. In 2013, the Moscow Patriarchate published a strongly critical document of Ravenna under the name “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church”3. In 2014 during the Amman session of the Commission no agreement was reached. The situation changes in the following one, in Chieti, a few months after the “Holy and Great Synod” of the Orthodox churches, syn- od to which four of the fourteen autocephalous churches (Antioch, Bulgaria, Georgia and Russia) decided at the last moment not to participate, even having confrmed their presence and approved the documents in January of the same year 2016. These diffculties refect not only tensions of the Orthodox churches with the Catholic church but, especially, among the Orthodox churches them- selves. Situation that now unfortunately has worsened on the occasion of the declaration of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Indeed, because of this initiative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in September 2018, the Russian church has broken its communion with that patriarchate in 2 The meetings of Patmos/Rhodes (1980) and Munich (1982) where focused on “the Mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity”. The ones of Crete (1984) and Bari (1987) on “Faith, Sacraments and Unity of the Church”; the one of Valamo (1988) The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctifcation and Unity of the People of God”; the ones of Freising (1990) and Balamand (1993) on “Uniatism”; the one of Baltimore (2000) on “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism”; the one of Belgrade (2006) on “the Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church; Conciliarity and Authority in the Church at Three Levels of Ecclesial Life: Local, Regional and Universal”; the one of Ravenna (2007) on “The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”; the ones of Paphos (2009) and Vienna (2010) on “the Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”, the ones of Amman (2014) and Chieti (2016) on “Primacy and synodality in the Church”. 3 “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church”. Primacy and Synodality 249 two stages: frst it decided to omit the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the diptychs (September 2018) and a month later decreed the rupture of eucharistic communion with the patriarchate of Constantinople. The lat- ter, however, has not made the same decision nor the other autocephalous churches have taken sides yet, so that we cannot formally speak of a schism (at least so far). Members of the Moscow Patriarchate are now also prohibited from participating in commissions chaired by members of the patriarchate Constantinople, as is the case today of the international theological commis- sion currently chaired by Archbishop Job (Getcha) of Telmessos. This opens a new impasse for this offcial commission, which will probably continue to meet without the presence of Russian members though. In this context, it is necessary to mention that after the crisis at the Baltimore meeting (2000), when the offcial dialogue stalled, in 2004 a paral- lel and unoffcial commission emerged, the “Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox- Catholic Working Group”, composed of 26 theologians (13 Orthodox and 13 Catholics, of which I myself am a member), who are not delegates of their churches but nominated based on their theological competence. This group meets annually and has approved, after long years of preparation, the docu- ment “Serving Communion. Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality” in October 2018 in Graz. This document, which consists of an introduction, three fundamental chapters: hermeneutical refections, his- torical observations, systematic considerations, and closes with a conclusion, is also helpful for the subject of this article. The Ravenna document of October 2007 is entitled “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”, while that of Chieti in September 2016 is called: “Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service of the Unity of the Church”. Both documents - as already stated - can be put in parallel since they have almost identical structures. Ravenna 2007 Chieti 2016 Introduction (1-4) Introduction I. The Foundations of Conciliarity and Authority (5-16) 1. Conciliarity (5-11) 2. Authority (12-16) 250 Pablo Argárate II. The threefold actualization of Conciliarity and Authority (17-44) 1. The local level (18-21) The Local Church (8-10) The Regional Communion of Churches 2. The regional level (22-31) (11-14) The Church at the Universal Level 3. The universal level (32-44) (15-19) Conclusion (45-46) Conclusion (20-21) 21 paragraphs and 16 notes with ref- 46 paragraphs and 1 note on the differ- erences to the Church Fathers and the ent understanding of the Church Ecumenical Councils. Despite the structural similarity the differences are several. First, Chieti has half of Ravenna’s extension. At a deeper level, differences in accents and ap- proaches are seen. Chieti manifests a new context, where among other aspects a generational change is observed. Signifcant in that regard is the replace- ment of the orthodox co-chair of the commission; In place of metropolitan John (Zizioulas) is now Archbishop Job (Getcha), both of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As I mentioned, Chieti took place a few months after the synod of Crete (marked among other aspects by the absence of four churches). In Chieti, unlike Crete and Ravenna, the Russian delegates were present, but not the Bulgarians, while the representatives of Georgia objected to some of the paragraphs of the document. Regarding the content, several experts considered Chieti a document weaker than that of Ravenna, lacking balance, especially at the level of the local church. Ravenna, after starting with the quotation of Jn 17:21 (Chieti has 1 Jn 1:3-4) refers to the topics discussed in the previous meetings of the commission (reference absent in Chieti) and states: Now we take up the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and refect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority. On the basis of these common affrmations of our faith, we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which fow from the sacramental nature of the Church4. This relationship is in effect the frst chapter of the document (“The Foundations of Conciliarity and Authority “), where the two concepts of conciliarity and authority are analyzed. The frst one says: 4 Ravenna, 2-3. Primacy and Synodality 251 The term conciliarity or synodality comes from the word “council” (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops exercising a particular responsibility. It is also possible, however, to take the term in a more comprehensive sen- se referring to all the members of the Church (cfr. the Russian term sobornost)”5. Subsequently, a passage advances the theme of the second chapter: This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural con- text.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Conversation with Christos Yannaras: a Critical View of the Council of Crete
    In conversation with Christos Yannaras: a Critical View of the Council of Crete Andreas Andreopoulos Much has been said and written in the last few months about the Council in Crete, both praise and criticism. We heard much about issues of authority and conciliarity that plagued the council even before it started. We heard much about the history of councils, about precedents, practices and methodologies rooted in the tradition of the Orthodox Church. We also heard much about the struggle for unity, both in terms what every council hopes to achieve, as well as in following the Gospel commandment for unity. Finally, there are several ongoing discussions about the canonical validity of the council. Most of these discussions revolve around matters of authority. I have to say that while such approaches may be useful in a certain way, inasmuch they reveal the way pastoral and theological needs were considered in a conciliar context in the past, if they become the main object of the reflection after the council, they are not helping us evaluate it properly. The main question, I believe, is not whether this council was conducted in a way that satisfies the minimum of the formal requirements that would allow us to consider it valid, but whether we can move beyond, well beyond this administrative approach, and consider the council within the wider context of the spiritual, pastoral and practical problems of the Orthodox Church today.1 Many of my observations were based on Bishop Maxim Vasiljevic’s Diary of the Council, 2 which says something not only about the official side of the council, but also about the feeling behind the scenes, even if there is a sustained effort to express this feeling in a subtle way.
    [Show full text]
  • Synodality and Primacy in Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue
    Synodality and Primacy in Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Paul McPartlan Eccellenze, Eminenze, cari amici, è per me un grand’ onore, e una causa di gioia profonda, di partecipare a questo convengo, specialmente in questa città di Bari, luogo così significativo nella storia della fratellanza e di riconciliazione tra Cattolici e Ortodossi. Sono assai riconoscente a Don Cristiano ed alla Conferenza Episcopale Italiana per l’invito di condividere l’esperienza di questi giorni. Che questo convegno, per la grazia di Dio, ci aiuti, Ortodossi e Cattolici entrambi, di proseguire lungo la via che conduca verso quella piena communione che desideriamo così tanto. Mi é stato chiesto di offrirVi una prospettiva analitica sul dialogo attuale tra Cattolici e Ortodossi in quanto riguarda il tema di sinodalità e primato. A che punto siamo? Ecco la domanda. Don Cristiano mi ha concesso la possibilità di parlare in inglese. Vorrei ringraziarVi tutti per quella gentilissima considerazione. The theological dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the dialogue of truth, is essentially and necessarily based on the dialogue of charity that was begun between us in the 1960s, pioneered by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Blessed Pope Paul VI. The theological dialogue was announced by Pope Saint John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios in Constantinople in 1979, and it began in 1980, when a formal Plan for the dialogue was agreed at the first plenary meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in Patmos and Rhodes. Very wisely, it was decided that: ‘The dialogue should begin with the elements which unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches’, so as to begin ‘in a positive spirit’, and it was urged -1- that we should then keep that positive spirit when addressing the problems that have arisen between us.1 Three important agreed statements quickly followed.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Ecumenical Councils Pdf
    Seven ecumenical councils pdf Continue This article is about ecumenical advice in general. For Catholic councils, see For the Salvadoran painting of Dali, see the Ecumenical Council (painting). Part of the series about Christian Jesuschrist Christmas Crucifixion Resurrection BiblesionReceses old Testament New Testament Gospel Canon Book Of the Bible Church Creed New Testament Theology Of God Trinity Father Holy Spirit Apologetics Epiphany Christian History Of theology Mission Saving Story Of the Apostles Peter Paul Maria Early Christianity Fathers Constantine Tips Augustine East-Western Adventist Anabaptist Anglican Evangelical Evangelical Holiness Lutheran Methodist Pentecostal Eastern Eastern Catholic Orthodox Orthodox Church of the East (Nestorian) Netrinitarian Ie Witness the Last Day of St. One-Day Pentecost Related Themes Art Criticism Ecumenism Music Other Religions Prayer Preaching Symbolism of Christianity portalvte Part Hagia Sophia Review Structure Theology (History of Theology) Liturgy Church History Holy Mysteries View Mary View of the Icon of the Fountain / Resurrection / Ascension of Jesus Christianity Christian Church Apostolic Succession Four Signs Of the Church of the Orthodox Organization of The Autocephalous Patriarchate Ecumenical Patriarchate Ecumenical Policy Clergy Bishops Priests Deacons Monastics Degree Of Monastic Autocephalous Jurisdiction Autocephalous Church Autocephalous that are officially part of the sacrament: Constantinople Alexandria Antiochian Jerusalem Russia Serbia Bulgaria Georgia Cyprus Poland Albania
    [Show full text]
  • The Church: Towards a Common Vision
    ONE IN CHRIST CONTENTS VOLUME 49 (2015) NUMBER 2 ARTICLES The Church: Towards a Common Vision. A Faith and Order Perspective. Mary Tanner 171 Towards the Common Good. A Church and Society Perspective on The Church: Towards a Common Vision. William Storrar 182 Catholic Perspectives on The Church: Towards A Common Vision. Catherine E. Clifford 192 Questions of Unity, Diversity and Authority in The Church: Towards a Common Vision. Advances and Tools for Ecumenical Dialogue. Kristin Colberg 204 Catholic Appropriation and Critique of The Church: Towards a Common Vision. Brian P. Flanagan 219 Communion and Communication among the Churches in the Tradition of Alexandria. Mark Sheridan OSB 235 Squaring the Circle: Anglicans and the Recognition of Holy Orders. Will Adam 254 Ecumenism: Why the Slow Progress? Gideon Goosen 270 REPORTS The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Corrymeela Community. Pádraig Ó Tuama 285 The Hurley Legacy: a personal appreciation. Paddy Kearney 294 Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group. Communiqué – Halki 2015 299 A Contribution from the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue of Canada to the Anglican Church of Canada’s Commission on the Marriage Canon. 303 BOOK REVIEWS 317 170 ONE IN CHRIST VOL.49 NO.2 EDITORIAL Most of the articles in this issue are devoted to The Church: Towards a Common Vision (Faith and Order Paper 214, WCC 2013). We are pleased to publish contributions from the Catholic Theological Society of America (Clifford, Colberg, Flanagan), and papers originating in the December 2015 conference of the Joint Commission on Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church (Tanner, Storrar).
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Will T. Cohen Washington, D.C. 2010 The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II Will T. Cohen, Ph.D. Director: Paul McPartlan, D.Phil. Closely associated with Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement in the latter half of the 20 th century was the emergence of the expression “sister churches” used in various ways across the confessional division. Patriarch Athenagoras first employed it in this context in a letter in 1962 to Cardinal Bea of the Vatican Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and soon it had become standard currency in the bilateral dialogue. Yet today the expression is rarely invoked by Catholic or Orthodox officials in their ecclesial communications. As the Polish Catholic theologian Waclaw Hryniewicz was led to say in 2002, “This term…has now fallen into disgrace.” This dissertation traces the rise and fall of the expression “sister churches” in modern Catholic-Orthodox relations and argues for its rehabilitation as a means by which both Catholic West and Orthodox East may avoid certain ecclesiological imbalances toward which each respectively tends in its separation from the other. Catholics who oppose saying that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are sisters, or that the church of Rome is one among several patriarchal sister churches, generally fear that if either of those things were true, the unicity of the Church would be compromised and the Roman primacy rendered ineffective.
    [Show full text]
  • Synodality” – Results and Challenges of the Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church
    “SYNODALITY” – RESULTS AND CHALLENGES OF THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Archbishop Job of Telmessos I. The results of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has been focusing on the topic of “Primacy and Synodality” over the last twelve years. This is not surprising, since the issue of the exercise of papal primacy has been an object of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics over a millennium. The Orthodox contribution has been to point out that primacy and synodality are both inseparable: there cannot be a gathering (synodos) without a president (protos), and no one cannot be first (protos) if there is no gathering (synodos). As the Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, pointed out: “The logic of synodality leads to primacy”, since “synods without primates never existed in the Orthodox Church, and this indicates clearly that if synodality is an ecclesiological, that is, dogmatical, necessity so must primacy [be]”1. The Ravenna Document (2007) The document of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, referred as the “Ravenna Document” (2007), speaks of synodality and conciliarity as synonyms, “as signifying that each member of the Body of Christ, by virtue of baptism, has his or her place and proper responsibility in eucharistic koinonia (communio in Latin)”. It then affirms that “conciliarity reflects the Trinitarian mystery and finds therein its ultimate foundation”2 and from there, considers that “the Eucharist manifests the Trinitarian koinônia actualized in the faithful as an organic unity of several members each of whom has a charism, a service or a proper ministry, necessary in their variety and diversity for the edification of all in the one ecclesial Body of Christ”3.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Papers for the Faith and Order Commission Report, Communion and Disagreement
    SUPPORTING PAPERS FOR THE FAITH AND ORDER COMMISSION REPORT, COMMUNION AND DISAGREEMENT 1 Copyright © The Archbishops’ Council 2016 2 Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1 Communion, Disagreement and Conscience Loveday Alexander and Joshua Hordern ........................................................................................ 6 Listening to Scripture ..................................................................................................................... 6 Conscience: Points of Agreement ................................................................................................ 9 Conscience and Persuasion in Paul – Joshua Hordern .......................................................... 10 Further Reflections – Loveday Alexander .................................................................................. 15 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 17 2 Irenaeus and the date of Easter Loveday Alexander and Morwenna Ludlow ................................................................................ 19 Irenaeus and the Unity of the Church – Loveday Alexander ................................................ 19 A Response – Morwenna Ludlow.................................................................................................. 23 Further Reflections – Loveday
    [Show full text]
  • The Petrine Ministry at the Time of the First Four Ecumenical Councils
    The Petrine ministry at the time of the first four ecumenical councils: relations between the Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Bishops as revealed in the canons, process, and reception of the councils Author: Pierluigi De Lucia Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1852 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2010 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. BOSTON COLLEGE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND MINISTRY WESTON JESUIT DEPARTEMENT The Petrine ministry at the Time of the First Four Ecumenical Councils Relations between the Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Bishops as revealed in the canons, process, and reception of the councils A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the S.T.L. Degree Of the School of Theology and Ministry By: Pierluigi De Lucia, S.J. Directed by: Francine Cardman Second Reader: Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. May 2010 © Copyright by Pierluigi DE LUCIA, S.J. 2010 Abstract The Petrine ministry of the bishops of Rome and relations with the eastern bishops at the time of the first four ecumenical councils are the focus of this thesis. It places the Church in the complex historical context marked by the public recognition of Christianity under Constantine (312) and the great novelty of the close interactions of the emperors with the bishops of the major sees in the period, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The study examines the structures of the church (local and regional synods and ecumenical councils) and the roles of bishops and emperors in the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), including the “robber” council of 449.
    [Show full text]
  • Primacy and Synodality from an Orthodox Perspective - Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk
    Primacy and Synodality from an Orthodox Perspective - Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk 09.11.2014 20:10 Retrieved 4/12/2016 Paper presented at St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary on 8 November 2014 on the occasion of conferring an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity Your Beatitude, Your Eminences and Graces, dear fathers, brothers and sisters, distinguished guests! First of all I would like to express my profound gratitude to St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary for awarding me the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity. It has been a great privilege for me to have been a friend of the Seminary for many years, to have known its deans and chancellors, beginning with Fr John Meyendorff of blessed memory, to having had my books published by the Seminary press and to have served on the Seminary’s board. At a time when relations between Russia and America are once again strained, I find it particularly important to develop strong relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and American Orthodoxy. I believe that St Vladimir’s Seminary with its broad inter-Orthodox outreach may play a crucial role in the restoration of trust between different parts of the globe. Today I would like to speak on the issue of synodality and primacy. This topic has acquired particular importance in recent years owing to the work of the International Joint Commission on the Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. This matter is also relevant to Inter-Orthodox relations, especially in the context of preparations for the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Mission and Unity Together : Impulses from Roman Catholic Ecclesiology and from Multilateral and Bilateral Dialogue Processes
    Keeping mission and unity together : impulses from Roman Catholic ecclesiology and from multilateral and bilateral dialogue processes Autor(en): De Mey, Peter Objekttyp: Article Zeitschrift: Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift : neue Folge der Revue internationale de théologie Band (Jahr): 102 (2012) Heft 1-2 PDF erstellt am: 04.10.2021 Persistenter Link: http://doi.org/10.5169/seals-405099 Nutzungsbedingungen Die ETH-Bibliothek ist Anbieterin der digitalisierten Zeitschriften. Sie besitzt keine Urheberrechte an den Inhalten der Zeitschriften. Die Rechte liegen in der Regel bei den Herausgebern. Die auf der Plattform e-periodica veröffentlichten Dokumente stehen für nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke in Lehre und Forschung sowie für die private Nutzung frei zur Verfügung. Einzelne Dateien oder Ausdrucke aus diesem Angebot können zusammen mit diesen Nutzungsbedingungen und den korrekten Herkunftsbezeichnungen weitergegeben werden. Das Veröffentlichen von Bildern in Print- und Online-Publikationen ist nur mit vorheriger Genehmigung der Rechteinhaber erlaubt. Die systematische Speicherung von Teilen des elektronischen Angebots auf anderen Servern bedarf ebenfalls des schriftlichen Einverständnisses der Rechteinhaber. Haftungsausschluss Alle Angaben erfolgen ohne Gewähr für Vollständigkeit oder Richtigkeit. Es wird keine Haftung übernommen für Schäden durch die Verwendung von Informationen aus diesem Online-Angebot oder durch das Fehlen von Informationen. Dies gilt auch für Inhalte Dritter, die über dieses Angebot zugänglich sind. Ein Dienst der
    [Show full text]
  • An Agreed Statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church
    USCCB > Beliefs And Teachings > Ecumenical And Interreligious > Ecumenical > Orthodox AN AGREED STATEMENT ON CONCILIARITY AND PRIMACY IN THE CHURCH For the past three years, the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States of America has been studying questions related to the theology and practice of councils and to the exercise of primacy in our churches. Our papers and discussions prompted the following reflections, which we now offer in the hope that they will advance the work of the international Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue, and the wider relations among the churches, as they have advanced our own understanding of these issues. 1. In both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology, the Church is the mystery of God-given unity among human beings, who are bound together by their faith in the risen Lord and by the transforming gift of the Holy Spirit into the divine and human fellowship (koinonia) we call the Body of Christ (I Cor 12.13). Joined by the Holy Spirit to the Son in his loving obedience to the Father's will, the Church manifests redeemed creation within the embrace of the Triune reality of God, calling God "Abba! Father!" by the gift of the Spirit of his Son (Gal 4.6), as it strives towards the fullness of his Kingdom. 2. Individual human persons become sharers in this mystery through sharing in the Church's profession of the apostolic faith and through baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28.19). "Born" there into the Church's life "by water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3.5), they may now "consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6.11).
    [Show full text]
  • The Church As Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries
    THE CHURCH AS KOINONIA OF SALVATION: ITS STRUCTURES AND MINISTRIES Common Statement of the Tenth Round of the U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue THE CHURCH AS KOINONIA OF SALVATION: ITS STRUCTURES AND MINISTRIES Page ii Preface It is a joy to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ), signed by representatives of the Catholic Church and the churches of the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. Pope John Paul II and the leaders of the Lutheran World Federation recognize this agreement as a milestone and model on the road toward visible unity among Christians. It is therefore with great joy that we present to the leadership and members of our churches this text, the tenth produced by our United States dialogue, as a further contribution to this careful and gradual process of reconciliation. We hope that it will serve to enhance our communion and deepen our mutual understanding. Catholics and Lutherans are able to “confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works” (JDDJ §15). We also recognize together that: “Our consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification must come to influence the life and teachings of our churches. Here it must prove itself. In this respect, there are still questions of varying importance which need further clarification” (JDDJ §43). In this spirit we offer the following modest clarifications and proposals.
    [Show full text]