Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Healing the Great Schism: Catholic/Orthodox Reconciliation
9/22 | Vicomte13

Posted on 09/22/2004 11:38:26 AM PDT by Vicomte13

Christ prayed for the unity of His Church. Collectively, we have made quite a hash of it. What divides us? How far are we apart, really? Is reconciliation and reunification really impossible? I don't think so.

Doctrinally, there is more that separates the liberal and conservative wings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches than separates Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Many of the doctrinal differences that there are date back to the early centuries, but were not a bar to us all being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for more than half of the history of Christianity.

Historical missteps, and more than a little stubbornness, divide us, but this division is unnatural and indeed unholy. We cannot simply ACCEPT it as a given. It is not what Jesus wanted of us, and we have a duty to try and put back together what He made whole but what we have sundered.

But how?

For starters, look at how very much unites us still. The Orthodox Church is Holy. The Catholic Church is Holy. Both are apostolic, in unbroken lineage back to the apostles. We share the same sacraments. We believe the same things about those sacraments. In extremis, we can give confession too and take extreme unction or viaticum from one another's priests. Because somewhere, at the bottom of it, we each really do know that it's the Latin, Russian, Greek, Syrian and Coptic rites of the same Holy catholic Church.

Indeed, within the Catholic Church proper, in union with Rome, are Byzantine and other Eastern Rite churches that are for all appearances Orthodox. That the Orthodox Liturgy of St. John Chysostom is beautiful, and sonorous, and long, should be no barrier. There is no reason that the Orthodox rite should not remain exactly as it is. Indeed, there is a very good reason to revive, in the West, the old Latin Rite of the Catholic Church: many people want it back. Why should they be denied it? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass were Holy and are Holy. There is no reason at all they they cannot all be practiced within a reunited Church. There is no reason for Russian Orthodoxy to cease using Slavonic, and Greek Orthodoxy to cease using Greek, just as there is no reason that Latin Rite Churches should not be able to reassume Latin if their parishoners desire it. For over a thousand years the different parts of the Church used different languages, and yet we were all one Church. Today, with the vernacular, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches use many, many, many languages. None of this diminishes their Holiness. Latin, Greek and Slavonic are not holy, they are old. And there is nothing wrong with old.

So again I ask: what really divides us? There is nothing of the liturgy of either Latin or Greek or Russian rite that would need to change were the Churches to come back into unity.

All that divides us, really, is the question of authority. It is a political question, about the office of the Pope. Cut through it all, and that is what is at the heart of it.

And this can be resolved. Indeed, the tension ALWAYS existed, and flared up at different times during the long millennium of Church unity. Our spiritual ancestors had the wisdom to settle for an arrangement of metropolitans and patriarchs, with the Bishop of Rome considered one of them, but primus inter pares at the "round table". Like the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, he sets the agenda and "assigns cases", but each preserves his dignity as a co-equal justice. In order to maintain Christian unity, it was necessary for the Pope to exercise discretion in this role. And most handled it well. It also required discretion on the part of the Eastern Patriarchs. And most handled it well. It is the contrivance of the Devil that the time arose whereby stubborn (and corrupt) Pope encountered stubborn (and beleaguered, by the Muslim invasion) eastern Patriarch, and the Schism erupted.

Surely we can repair this wound in the visible Body of Christ on Earth. Indeed, it is not really optional. It is our DUTY to attempt it.

What is it that the East wants? Surely it is not to compel the Cathedral of Notre Dame to start conducting masses in Slavonic! No. It is to be recognized in its liturgy and in its territorial area. Should Latin Rite missionaries be attempting to sieze Russia for Catholicism? No. Russia should be under the Russian Rite, subject to the Metropolitan of Moscow, sovereign in his sphere, who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. I should be able to give confession and take absolution in a seamless Church from Gibraltar to Vladivostok.

What is it that the West wants? Too much, probably. At the Council of Florence, the last moment of unity in the Church, the West acknowledged the customs of the East, and the East acknowledged "the traditional privileges of the Bishop of Rome", which is to say, primus inter pares.

Now, if there were deep and abiding spiritual and doctrinal divides, such as there are between the Catholic Church and, say, the Anglican Communion or the various Protestant Churches, reunification would be out of sight. Primus inter pares would lead directly to Papal interference. But the Orthodox and the Catholic are each so doctrinally close that there need not be ANY real interference in the West by the East, or the East by the West. Indeed, it would immeasurably help the post-Vatican II Western Church to have a Vatican III at which the Metropolitan of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constatinople and their affiliated Bishops, and the Eastern Cardinals, sat, spoke, voted. The Church needs the counterweight of Orthodox Tradition to offset some of the less propitious "modernizing" elements that have run unchecked in parts of the West.

For its part, much of Eastern Orthodoxy is subject to, and under the thumb of, Islam. And abused. We see this right now even in secular Turkey. There is no religious voice on earth more powerful than Rome. And no other religion has its own seat in the United Nations. The lot of Eastern Christians would be bettered by having the full weight of Western Christianity brought to bear within the Church.

I do not believe that this is a pipe dream. Reuniting the Pentecostals and Rome might be, but bringing Moscow, Constantinople and Rome together again at the same round table should not be. It is what Jesus intended from the beginning. What God has joined, let no man sunder. With God, everything is possible. There is nothing that goes on in Orthodox Churches that would not be able to continue in unity with the West, and nothing that goes on in Latin Churches that would have to stop to be in Union with the East.

Perhaps the fears of the East would be quelled if the Patriarchs were favored for election to the Papacy.

Just a thought.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: catholic; orthodox; reconciliation; schism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-332 next last
To: NJ Neocon
Please forgive my misspellings and poor formating.
61 posted on 09/26/2004 2:30:14 AM PDT by NJ Neocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NJ Neocon; kosta50; Vicomte13; Tantumergo; MarMema; AlbionGirl; monkfan; FormerLib; NYer
Oh, don't be bothered by us. We do this sometimes. I remember many years ago when my oldest was about 11, we had the March 25th celebration and our March Parish General Assembly on the same Sunday after the Liturgy. Because my son was going to be reciting a poem that I had likewise recited for March 25th as a child, my folks came to town for the Liturgy and the pageant. Dad was a very Irish Roman Catholic, fasted all through Lent, went to Mass everyday, that sort of thing. He had never been to anything like a parish GA. Well, after a polite and friendly start, the meeting, as sometimes happens, degenerated into a battle over some point. I got pretty hot and heavy for a while, with both sides giving as good as they got. Dad watched in silence and when it was over, we all went back upstairs to a baptism then the celebration afterwards where we laughed and hugged and ate and danced and all had a grand time. Dad stood up and told the crowd he had never seen anything like it and that he loved it; that we could have a knock down drag out and then go right back to hugging and kissing because we all really loved each other, no matter what might have been said in the heat of the moment.

Internet discussions even among people of good will, and the crowd on this thread is made up of people of good will, probably isn't the best place to find spiritual guidance or answers to great questions. We all know of the dangers of e-mail, quick answer, written and sent in haste and we repent at leisure. You know, if this group had both the time and the opportunity to sit down on an evening and have this discussion, flashes of anger could be dealt with, misunderstandings readily resolved. But not here.Threads are too fast on the one hand, too slow on the other. My icon of St. Patrick says "I pray for the Church in Unity". Pray unceasingly. I know the Holy Spirit will guide you in the right path.
62 posted on 09/26/2004 4:59:12 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NJ Neocon; kosta50; Vicomte13; Tantumergo; MarMema; AlbionGirl; monkfan; FormerLib; NYer

"I got pretty hot and heavy for a while,"

"IT" got pretty hot and heavy for a while. Probably a Freudian slip! Sorry!


63 posted on 09/26/2004 5:02:03 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; NJ Neocon; Vicomte13
I needed help, and maybe God sent me here to seek it

God willing, perhaps we are here to help you. Kolokotronis makes a good point about the fast paced responses that oftentimes are posted "before" the individual has truly reflected. Sometimes, we squabble like sibblings here in the forum.

*this wayward-looking-to-return-to-the-fold-Cathoilc*

First and foremost ... Welcome home! . Even if you have not completed the journey, the fact that you are 'en route' is a positive step in the right direction. You will find yourself in good company here.

As a cradle catholic who has been sidetracked over the years, there was always a tugging sensation in my heart, no matter how hard I tried to ignore it. With little understanding of where you have been or how far you have come, we can at best only direct you to some resources. My first suggestion, though, would be to immerse yourself in prayer and ask our Lord to guide you.

In him comment:

"I read Jesus' giving "the power of the keys, to loose and to bind" to Peter as Jesus himself creating the papacy"

Vicomte13 points to something all catholics have been taught and believe. When Christ handed the keys to Peter, He said: "upon this rock (not rocks), I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." The Catholic Church has an unbroken line of successors to Peter. Some of the popes were unseemly at best, yet NOT ONE of them has ever erred on doctrine.

With all respect for our Orthodox christian brethren in the forum, I have the utmost respect for you and your faith. In no way should this statement be interpreted as an accusation against the Orthodox faith. I simply wish to restate what NJNeocon, and all catholics have been taught and believe.

It may come as a surprise to you, NJNeocon (it certainly did to me), that the Catholic Church is both Western (Rome) and Eastern (Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Byzantium). Earlier this year, thanks to information I learned from another freeper in the forum, I stepped into one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, lost my heart and soul to its beautiful liturgy, and never left. You can learn more about the 22 different liturgies that make up the One Holy Catholic Church, at this link.

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES .

If you have access to EWTN via your cable service, I would recommend that you tune in to Marcus Grodi's program "The Journey Home" which airs live on Monday nights at 8pm ET. Marcus is a convert and each week, his guests discuss their journey home to the Catholic Church. He also maintains a separate web site. You can meet others, like yourself at ...

Coming Home Network

There are other resources as well, but this is a start. If any one of us can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to freepmail me. Rest assured of my prayers for you as you complete your journey home.

64 posted on 09/26/2004 6:07:12 AM PDT by NYer (When you have done something good, remember the words "without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NYer

" "I read Jesus' giving "the power of the keys, to loose and to bind" to Peter as Jesus himself creating the papacy"

Vicomte13 points to something all catholics have been taught and believe. When Christ handed the keys to Peter, He said: "upon this rock (not rocks), I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." The Catholic Church has an unbroken line of successors to Peter. "

I just can't resist this: Matt: 18:18, 19:28, Eph: 2:20 and LK: 22:24-27. :)

Have a good Sunday, sister!


65 posted on 09/26/2004 6:21:38 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Obviously the Russian Church has an ethnic advantage on this turf, but the long history of co-option by the Communists has certainly created the dynamic whereby Russians are, in fact, turning to Rome in unprecedented numbers

Untrue.It is the protestants who are, in fact, sweeping Russia. Those Russians who reject Orthodoxy most often choose the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches.

"The top three new religious movements in Russia, according to conventional estimates, are the Pentecostals, the Baptists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. By one count, Protestantism grew throughout the 1990s at a rate of 20 to 25 percent per year. Even if that rate has slowed, growth continues. (It’s not just Russia. According to official statistics issued by the Belorussian government, Pentecostals are now the second largest religious group in the country, surpassing Catholicism, based on the number of registered communities."

The Catholic church will never successfully compete with Orthodoxy and Protestantism in Russia.

Your statements indicate that Catholicism is superior to Orthodoxy. We have never taken that stance, rather we have always said that only God chooses those who are saved.

It is not evolution but transfiguration which is characteristic for Orthodoxy."

How sad to see the divisive and competitive spirit in your post. You and your church will never tear the Russians away from their Orthodox history and past. It is a part of their culture, which even now transforms the protestants taking hold there.

"When a tribe or people or nation accepts Orthodoxy, as did Greece, Serbia and Russia, for example, that Christ-incarnating force transforms the society, shaping its soul, its ethos and its values."

It is Russia and the soul of the people there which would bless your church, not vice versa. I suspect your pope knows this, as does your Kasper, from things they have said.

But this inherent holiness, this kenotic culture, this belief in a life within Christ expressed in a piety mostly unknown in the west, are not yours to dominate or take away from the Russians. Instead those who came with that attitude were themselves transformed by the very depth of Orthodoxy within Russia.

66 posted on 09/26/2004 8:29:28 AM PDT by MarMema (Sharon is my hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

"When a tribe or people or nation accepts Orthodoxy, as did Greece, Serbia and Russia, for example, that Christ-incarnating force transforms the society, shaping its soul, its ethos and its values."

Well put. It transforms people the same way. This transformation seems to be of every fiber of the culture or of a person. My wife says that in Greece, the people walk Orthodox, even the cock crows Orthodox. To be fair, however, I've seen the same thing in Poland, but with Roman Catholicism.


67 posted on 09/26/2004 9:37:30 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
I just can't resist this: Matt: 18:18, 19:28, Eph: 2:20 and LK: 22:24-27. :)

Matt: 18:18 - Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Basis for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Matt: 19:28 - Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[28] This saying, directed to the Twelve, is from Q; see Luke 22:29-30. The new age: the Greek word here translated "new age" occurs in the New Testament only here and in Titus 3:5. Literally, it means "rebirth" or "regeneration," and is used in Titus of spiritual rebirth through baptism. Here it means the "rebirth" effected by the coming of the kingdom. Since that coming has various stages (see the notes on Matthew 3:2; 4:17), the new age could be taken as referring to the time after the resurrection when the Twelve will govern the true Israel, i.e., the church of Jesus. (For "judge" in the sense of "govern," cf Judges 12:8, 9, 11; 15:20; 16:31; Psalm 2:10). But since it is connected here with the time when the Son of Man will be seated on his throne of glory, language that Matthew uses in Matthew 25:31 for the time of final judgment, it is more likely that what the Twelve are promised is that they will be joined with Jesus then in judging the people of Israel. - New American Bible

Eph: 2:20 - built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.
Capstone: the Greek can also mean cornerstone or keystone. New American Bible

Lk: 22:24-27 - Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 9 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors';
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.

* * * * *

Pulling pieces of scripture can go both ways. If you continue with Luke 22, you will find the primacy of Peter in 28-32:

28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 10 11 "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.

Ultimately, what unites us is far greater than what separates us. I do believe that one day the Catholics and Orthodox, will be reunited :-).

Have a blessed day!

68 posted on 09/26/2004 11:10:31 AM PDT by NYer (When you have done something good, remember the words "without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bttt


69 posted on 09/26/2004 11:16:03 AM PDT by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: NJ Neocon
The best, most civil religious thread this wayward-looking-to-return-to-the-fold-Cathoilc has seen to date here at Freep and it self-destructs on the last two posts...

Yep, it's virtually guaranteed that someone will shout "But you must submit to MY authority."

For most of us, fully accepting God's authority is all that matters.

70 posted on 09/26/2004 12:09:26 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
You know what is funny to me is that I have had two patients whom I just felt were Orthodox, and they both turned out to be. One was from a local Antiochian church and the other was Ethiopian. The latter said he also sensed that I was Orthodox - we were both stumbling around trying to find a way to ask each other.

So there really is something in our behavior or attitude I suppose, that is "readable" by those who recognize it.

71 posted on 09/26/2004 8:04:18 PM PDT by MarMema (Sharon is my hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Have a blessed day!

And you also!

72 posted on 09/26/2004 8:05:11 PM PDT by MarMema (Sharon is my hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: NYer; NJ Neocon; Vicomte13; Tantumergo; MarMema; AlbionGirl; monkfan; FormerLib
Vicomte, I ask that you forgive my anger. I was wrong to lash out at you. I gave in to my disappointment with your turnaround. I trust that yours was a moment of weakness too and not what you really believe.

Pulling pieces of scripture can go both ways.

NYer, you are aware of John 16:23, and Mark 8:33 where Jesus says to Peter

because Peter started to rebuke Jesus. So, verse by verse, one can really stretch things. Obviously, this one verse is a distortion, as all out-of-context verses are. Likewise, Lk 22:31-32 that you reference, does not give Peter "authority" to judge and rule over other Apostles, but it directs him to straighten their faith -- once Peter himself turned around from his own failings. How does one strengthen one's faith? Certainly not by force or by a judgment! He does give Peter a special role, but that role is not that of a judge or a ruler.

This is actually where our divergence begins! Where we see Peter as a primate of honor, Catholics see him as having authority above and beyond that of other Apostles. The behavior of the Apostles after the Pentecost makes it clear that none of them considered Peter his primate in authority in the juridical sense. Deference due to respect is not the same as submission.

The popes always enjoyed authority over clergy in the West (because a priest has no power without a bishop). The pope never ruled the Church in the East in that sense (i.e. did not ordain or administer clergy there), always deferring to the patriarchs to govern their churches in their domain. But at the same time, the Pope was to enjoy the primacy of honor among all patriarchs and his prestige carried the greatest weight.

Thus, the expectation of Patriarch Alexy II for the Pope to respect Russian Orthodox domain is perfectly historically and ecclesiastically valid, just as it is impossible for the Russian Patriarch to receive the Pope as his senior in honor until the Church of the East and West normalized its broken relationship.

73 posted on 09/26/2004 8:52:25 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Interestingly, a rather long reply I typed up and sent never appeared. When that sort of thing happens, as it does occasionally, I am superstitious (or perhaps religious) enough to think that it is God's intervention to keep me from saying or doing that which He does not wish me to say or do.

I won't try to recreate all I wrote. It frankly wasn't that good anyway. The gist of it was that if you go back and read the post that I wrote (to which everyone reacted extremely negative), and really think about what I was writing, you may see that I was not actually writing in anger at all. Nor did I ever say "SUBMIT"!

All that I was doing was reacting logically to all that I had read. My thrust has been: God wants us to come into communion, since He dispenses valid sacraments to both of us. But "communion" can be limited to sharing the sacraments. The West should not dominate the East, or vice versa. I tried to give enough history to show that the West evolved as it did for a REASON, and the reason was not merely political. For Christianity itself to survive in the West, Christianity had to become the government for a long, long time, until the savages that we were learned how to read and write and administer.

I think that the Western Church would bend over backwards to reunite with the East - at least to share sacramental communion, and I was trying to convey that: complete respect for the Eastern patriarchal territories, no attempt at bringing the monarchic church East, no effort to impose "filioque" - and understanding that these things have evolved as they have over the course of a millennium, for very good reasons in many case, and that we're probably not going to be able to use the same catechism, but also that it doesn't matter nearly so much as that we be able to share communion and the sacraments. Certainly within the Western Church the Dominicans are about as far removed from the Francicans, and diocesan priests are as different in practice from Jesuits as can be, and yet these different organisms are able to all function under the big, big tent. I really don't see the differences East and West as being so profound that we cannot share the table together.

From reading the Orthodox here (go back and read what you wrote), it was clear that what you were saying is that the only terms under which we can come back into communion is if the Western Church should die, by considering everything that we have done in the past one thousand years an error. My response was simply that I think Rome has the better historical argument. Of course you do not agree, but I don't consider it an outrage or a destruction of the comity of the thread, after having heard everything that is supposedly wrong with my church, to answer, to the point: "I disagree. My Church is not wrong."

I did not follow that up with a counterattack. I simply, sadly, said that if the terms are that the West has to admit that the East was right, the Schism can never be repaired, because we don't think that the East was right.

Now, I think that we can come back into communion if we agree that nobody gets to win the historical arguments. They simply need to be put into abeyance so that we can share the sacraments. That has been my point all along.

My "turnaround" was not a turnaround backing away from that. It was a pragmatic response to what I read. The terms I suggested: nobody wins the historical argument and we reconcile without resolving the issues, and simply respect the differences, was UNACCEPTABLE to you. What you offered amounts to us saying that we were wrong and disassembling 1000 years of tradition. But that would be a lie. We don't believe that we were wrong. We believe that we were right. The same way you feel.

The only "turnaround" I had concerned Rome not sending missionaries into Orthodox areas. If healing the Schism will eventually be possible, which I had greater, naive hope for when I initiated the thread, then it is a waste of time and energy to duplicate efforts within the Church. But if it is doomed to fail, then Rome has a duty to send missionaries to the people of the East too.

Just go back and read the thread.
I never said the East had to change anything, at all. All I said was that to share communion the East needs to tolerate the differences in the West, and the West the East. That is the very antithesis of "SUBMIT!"

It was you who said that this sort of tolerance is bad religion, and not an acceptable basis for reunification. Your proposals amounted to the Catholic Church admitting a millennium of error in order to come back into communion.
My only response to that was, and is: we were not in error.

I am not angry at you for feeling as you do. If you were angry at my response, I apologize for not making it clearer.
Mostly, I find the whole thing deeply depressing.


74 posted on 09/26/2004 9:47:01 PM PDT by Vicomte13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
"Sorry to be a misery-guts here but, if I was an E.O., I would have to ask myself 'What on earth would we gain by being in communion with Rome again?'"

*snip*

"If I were E.O. I would probably tell the Pope to come back in a couple of hundred years, and we'd think about talking then."

Quite perceptive.

The fundamental thing that needs to be overcome is the fact that there are profound differences in the approach to the spiritual life between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. (And yes, picky dogmatic things like the filioque have had profound implications in the development of the spiritual life in the West, just as St. Photius and others predicted that they would.) There are extensive shared formulations of dogmatic faith, liturgical similarities that can be explored, etc..., but they pale before the great chasm of fundamental differences.

I remember when looking at both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy from the outside many years ago, I didn't see particularly profound differences, either. But they are there, and they have nothing to do with nationalism, historical accident, Muslim domination, liturgical "rite", or the like.

The path to the Roman Catholic Church being able to return to communion with the Orthodox Church is only to be found one place: through the Roman Catholic Church critically examining its own spiritual path over the past 1000-plus years -- examining how things got to where they are today, with the crises of pederasty, dwindling vocations, liturgical chaos, and jettisoning of traditional beliefs. That the Roman Catholic Church is very ill is obvious to anyone who looks at it honestly, and all of us who look on the current state of affairs are grieved by it. What should be most important to devout Roman Catholics should not be "how can we unify with Church X," but rather, "how can we get healthy again?"

Union with Rome as she currently stands will not bring health to Rome, it will rather simply bring sickness to Orthodoxy. All of the answers to the current crisis in the Roman Catholic Church are there in the West's own ancient spiritual traditions from the time well before the Schism. Roman Catholics can benefit from contact with Orthodoxy, but not at the levels of "official negotiations" or ecumenical gatherings, which are mere worldly instruments of political maneuvering and academic gamesmanship. Orthodox who participate in these either don't take them seriously... and if they do, they in turn aren't taken seriously by the faithful Orthodox.

What Roman Catholics can benefit from (and what could eventually lead to a true union reflecting complete unity of faith and spiritual approach) are three things:

1. Reading the writings of and talking to Orthodox Christians who have explored deeply their Western Orthodox roots from the time before the Schism -- spiritual and liturgical.

2. Attending services at liturgically traditional and vibrant Orthodox parishes to see the role that liturgy plays in shaping our lives, and how this differs even from traditionalist Roman Catholic liturgical approaches (this is not to be found so much in the Divine Liturgy as it is in Vespers, Matins, and the "minor" services of the cycle.)

3. Read practical, traditional Orthodox spiritual writings, and discuss them with someone who actively pursues the spiritual life.

Finally, do all of the above not with the goal of "finding common ground," "looking for ways to unite," or heaven forbid to argue about it. Avoid Orthodox who want to argue about theology. Seek out those who understand their faith deeply, who practice it, and who are willing to tell you about it simply, as best they can.

Union will only be genuine and blessed by God if it is a true union in the fullness of the faith. This cannot be achieved by wishing it to be so, and cannot be achieved by negotiations, consultations, "agreed statements," political maneuvering, bribery, extortion, and the like.

Roman Catholics who genuinely want union for the right reasons need to understand just why the idea of union is so unthinkable to most devout, practicing Orthodox Christians. Not unthinkable in the sense that the concept is repugnant (far from it), but unthinkable in the sense that we see the profound changes that would need to happen in Roman Catholicism before genuine and full agreement in the faith could exist between us. And in our lifetimes, the Roman Catholic Church has drifted farther away from Orthodoxy, not drawn closer to it. On the other hand, the potential for genuine union based on agreement in the faith and spiritual approach between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism and Anglicanism has never been closer.

75 posted on 09/26/2004 10:29:10 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
"The only "turnaround" I had concerned Rome not sending missionaries into Orthodox areas. If healing the Schism will eventually be possible, which I had greater, naive hope for when I initiated the thread, then it is a waste of time and energy to duplicate efforts within the Church. But if it is doomed to fail, then Rome has a duty to send missionaries to the people of the East too."

If by your lights, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism share the same faith to such an extent that inter-communion should be able to be instituted, what would be the purpose of these missionaries? To what would you be converting them?

The answer, of course, was in your original post, where you stated that the barrier to some sort of union is purely political. Therefore, the decision not to send Roman missionaries east-ward would likewise be political -- i.e. in order to promote union.

The implication is obvious (at least to me) -- sending Roman missionaries into Orthodox lands to "compete for souls" against the Orthodox Church would likewise be fundamentally political. What exactly would these converts be gaining, other than being juridically aligned with the "right" hierarchy? If they would be gaining something more than that, then we obviously do not yet share the same faith, and union would be a farce.

This all points to what the other Orthodox posters on this thread have been saying, and for the most part without rancor (which has no place in this kind of discussion) -- there are profound differences between the basic spiritual approaches of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

This, of course, is without even beginning to address the question of just why Roman Catholicism would place a priority on sending missionaries into Orthodox countries when Catholic parishes across the western world are in desperate need of priests to care for their most basic spiritual needs, and when Catholics have hundreds of millions of readily available Protestants (not to mention non-Christians) who presumably need conversion to Roman Catholicism even more badly than do we Orthodox.

76 posted on 09/26/2004 11:15:46 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RonF; Vicomte13

Actually, reading up on the history of the filioque controversy you can see that it has crossed over and over again from being a theological difference to being a political one. And, while I am a Catholic I can rightly see blame put on BOTH sides. Both sides have played politics


77 posted on 09/27/2004 12:58:06 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Vicomte13; NYer
but in all honesty, what do you do with the different phronemas of the East and the West?

A very good point -- but you forget that the Maronite Church in Lebanon is in full communion with the Latin church and it, presumably (NYer please correct me if I am wrong) has the same phronema as the Orthodox churchs. THe Latin church does not and should NOT impose its traditions on other churchs. Our basic dogma, our theologies being the same we should at the very least present a united front to our enemies -- liberals and slammies and communists
78 posted on 09/27/2004 1:17:00 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; Agrarian
I don't think I ever wrote that your Church is wrong (if I did, I expressed myself incorrectly). I made it clear that it is not the same Church, that our theology does differ and that your suggestion was more akin to a confederation then communion.

I also tried to dispel a popular opinion in the West that the Orthodox Church does not recognize papacy, and to explain why the Patriarch of Russia has the right to ask that territories under his patriarchy are left to him, as well as why it is impossible for Alexy II to receive the Pope in an official capacity against charges often made that the Patriarch of Russia just doesn't like the Pope or that he somehow demands something that was not a prerogative of a patriarch all along.

I went to great lengths, as much as reasonably possible on this forum, to point to some key theological, philosophical, cultural and historical differences that divide us, especially how we, as well as other Christians, read biblical accounts and draw inferences from them about papacy and many other issues.

Agrarian raises some valid points about you statements that seem to contradict each other, regarding our alleged sacramental agreement and continued proselytizing in Russia.

Bottom line is: if these issues and solutions were that simple, I believe that we would not be talking about them one thousand years later. I am sorry if the Orthodox "burst your bubble" but I hope you will be Christian enough to at least accept if not understand that as much as you think your Church is right, we know that your Church was with us at Seven Councils, which means -- since we are still there -- we must still be right and we are not going to change for the sake of pragmatism or political expediency.

Please, tend to your Church and seek ways to find solutions for her, solutions that are more urgently needed than enticing the Orthodox to join you half way.

79 posted on 09/27/2004 1:25:15 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; NYer

Do I believe that when the churchs unite (and note I say WHEN not IF), you shoudl become a Latin rite just because you live in the West? NO. Should a Catholic in the Ukraine become Orthodox? NO. Let people choose the rite as long as the dogma, the teachings are the same


80 posted on 09/27/2004 1:27:38 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-332 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson