What would the Orthodox have to do to have unity? (Catholic/Orthodox unity)

Question: What would the Orthodox have to do to have unity

Father Thomas Hopko, a prominent Orthodox theologian, addresses a controversial topic in a visit here

EDITOR’S NOTE: Father Thomas Hopko is an Orthodox theologian and the dean emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary in Crestwood, N.Y. He is a retired professor of dogmatic theology who lives in Ellwood City, Pa. Recently, he spoke to the St. John Chrysostom Society at a meeting held at St. John Orthodox Church in Campbell on the topic of what the Orthodox would have to do, despite our shared common heritage, before there could be unity with Catholicism. The topic seems of such importance to ecumenism that we include here, edited for length, his remarks that evening. The St. John Chrysostom Society works to foster unity and understanding between Roman Catholics and members of eastern-rite churches.

My topic is not what I as Orthodox believe would be required of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church for us to have unity, but rather “what do I believe, being an Orthodox, that the Orthodox have to do? What is required of the Orthodox Church, particularly the bishops? What would they have to do in order to have the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church (Latin rite and Eastern churches) be in sacramental communion?” Which would simply mean, be one church.

Because, if you re in Eucharistic communion, you are one church. That’s what makes the Church one. It’s the unity in the body broken, the blood shed of Jesus before the face of God. That’s where the Church is actualized on earth in the celebration of the mysteries: baptism, chrism, Eucharist. That’s what makes us one. That is where the unity of our doctrine is shown, our unity of worship, our unity of morals, our ethics, the unity of spiritual life.

Now if a Roman Catholic were giving this talk and said, “What do we require of the Orthodox?” it would be a very different talk. Certainly one thing that is constantly required is that the Orthodox would recognize the bishop of Rome as the first bishop of Rome – which, as I said last time [I spoke here], according to us, Peter was not. The first bishop of Rome, according to us, was Linus.

But in any case, the Roman Catholics would make different requirements; they would require certain other things from the Orthodox for there to be unity. The main thing that would be required – these days, virtually the only thing – would be the acceptance of what is now known as the Vatican Dogma: namely that Peter was the first bishop of Rome; the present bishop of Rome is his successor; he has special rights and privileges juridically over the Church; these include, according even to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, that in certain conditions the bishop of Rome speaks from himself and not from the consensus of the Church, on matters of morals and doctrine, in certain cases infallibly. Everybody would have to agree to it. Also, every bishop on earth gets the legitimacy of his episcopacy in communion with the See of Rome… and that the bishops of Rome appoint all the bishops on earth. Well, this would all have to be recognized by the Orthodox for there to be sacramental communion. I believe that would be the Roman Catholic position.

But our topic tonight is “What would the Orthodox have to do in order to have communion [unity] with the Roman Catholic Church?” What follows is my opinion:

Unity in essentials

The first theological thing, the essential thing that we would have to do, would be to insist that in essence, in what is really substantially belonging to Christianity…. that we essentially held the same faith.

So the first thing theologically that the Orthodox would have to do would be to be very clear – very clear – about what belongs essentially in Christianity and what does not… What is secondary? What could be different? What can be local or provincial or something that people like, but doesn’t really affect the substantial unity of the faith and the confession of the Orthodox faith in the Catholic Church? Because in early Christian writings, the faith was always called Orthodox and the church was always called Catholic.

In the early Church, they spoke about the Catholic Church which holds the Orthodox faith, according to the Scriptures. So that’s the main thing. That’s no easy thing.

But having said that, a million things come up about making that happen. I think very strongly that the first thing the Orthodox have to do – especially the clergy, especially the bishops – before they even get to that issue of what is essential and what is not essential – the only thing that could be allowed to divide Christians is disagreement on essentials. That’s what we are all working on. What is essential? What is not essential?

The desire to be one

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 (especially in this world which is getting less and less Christian as the clock ticks), that Christians would be divided… A lot of Christians these days don’t even claim that and are not interested in that. But the members of the St. John Chrysostom Society … exist because of that. We claim to belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ, the church that teaches the gospel truly, fully, that prays properly, that acts and teaches the right way to behave according to Christ, according to God Almighty, according to the Holy Scriptures, the canons, the saints, the fathers, etc.

So the most important thing of all is the desire to be one, and to prove that desire, not only by praying – because we pray for unity at every single liturgy – but prayer without activity, without work, is just blasphemous. To be praying all these things and not to be working, not be ready to make any possible sacrifice you could make that doesn’t violate the essence of the faith. In other words, the Orthodox have to desire unity and be ready to sacrifice everything that they can without violating their convictions about the gospel in order to be one, particularly with Roman Catholics.

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.

When people ask me, for example, why the Orthodox jurisdictions in America are not united, the answer is very clear: because our leaders don’t want it. If they wanted it, we would have had it yesterday. There is nothing stopping them… you may have to suffer a lot. You may have to give up some things: power, pre-eminence, prominence, property, possessions, prestige, positions, privilege and pleasure. We’re not ready to give up those things because of pride, passion and prejudice. Forget it. There’s not going to be any unity. That’s what divides people generally, and it is certainly what divides churches.

Now here I would allow myself one little “not my business” remark: I have a hunch those same things are operating in the Eastern Catholic Churches, too…

We will never be one unless we desire it with all our hearts, and are ready to put away everything that we can to have it…. Everything that doesn’t belong to the essence of the faith. Language doesn’t belong to the essence of the faith. Calendars don’t belong to the essence of the faith. Certain liturgical customs don’t belong to the essence of the faith. Even the Byzantine Rite Liturgy for us does not belong to the essence of the faith.

Not motivated for unity

There was a whole thousand years when the Church had multiple rites of praise to God. In fact, the irony is, the time when there were the most multiple rituals for the sacraments and the services was the time there was the greatest unity in doctrine and spiritual life, evangelism, etc. In any case, the ritual is not of the essence of the faith. Language isn’t, calendars are not… all those things are not part of the essence of the faith. But unless we have the desire for unity, which then would lead us to feel that we have an absolute obligation from God to distinguish between what is really essential and what is not, we are never going to be united.

And here, I would say, on the planet Earth right now, I think –in fact, I am sure – the Orthodox churches around the world are not motivated for unity. In some of the churches, they even think that ecumenism is a heresy. In some churches, there is a feeling that what we just did upstairs – pray together – is not Orthodox. These Orthodox feel we should not pray together with Catholics because they are heretics. Some Orthodox believe that…

So if there is a desire for unity, that will be proved not only by difficult, painful efforts to distinguish between what is essentially of the faith and what is not, but it will also require believers to do absolutely everything they can with others if only who by themselves are convinced would be contrary to the gospel if they did not – in other words – and this became a popular teaching of Pope John XXIII – who said “let us pledge to do together everything that we can, and do separately only the things that are still for us a matter of content and faith.” That’s exactly what John Paul II said in [his 1995 apostolic letter] “Orientale Lumen”… He called on Roman Catholics to affirm whatever is good, true, beautiful, holy, of God, wherever it is…” It’s absolute obligation for an Orthodox – and more than an obligation, a joy – to affirm any agreement anywhere among human beings that we can claim as really true, right and of God. Now, how much more would that be the case if we were talking about the Christian Faith? The gospel? Christ? His divinity? His humanity? If we share all those things in common, then we should affirm them, and stand before the world affirming them in common.

I honestly do not believe most Orthodox leaders are even conscious of that. There is another agenda going on, an agenda that belongs to this world…. That is why 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.

There are several other things that the Orthodox would have to do. Besides desiring unity, and working really hard to say where the real disagreements are and why, and not to make issues of what are not essential – that would be a huge step forward if we were mobilized and motivated to do that – but there are several other things.

Be ready to forgive

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!”

We should say: “Whatever they do is their business; we’re going to look at ourselves. We’re going to admit our wrongs, our errors, our weaknesses, our sins. We’re going to forgive the sins of the others, whether or not they even admit them. We think they did wrong; we’re not going to make them admit it. But we’re going to forgive.” I believe that unless we are ready to do that, forget it. Let’s have coffee right now.

We cannot be looking back. We cannot be trying to figure things out. We cannot be saying who did what to whom when. It’s important to do that… but we Orthodox have to admit our own sins and forgive others even when we believe they have done horrible things. Among the Orthodox, probably the most violent against union with Rome would be the Serbs, because they cannot forget… the past. You say “Roman Catholic” among them, you might as well say “devil”. Unless they can get over that, and admit that they produced a few corpses too… it was not just a one-way street. But even if it were, the Orthodox have to forgive. They need to ask, “What can we do now?” That’s just an essential Christian principle in general, not only about Church unity… you know there are some people in their 80s who can’t die because they haven’t forgiven their own parents yet for what they did to them? If Christianity is about anything, it’s about forgiveness. Forgiveness means acknowledging that someone did wrong to you, but deciding that you are not going to break communion over that. My own feeling it that the best way to heal memories is just not to have them. But the problem is, you can’t help having them, especially if they have been pumped into you since you were born. So what do you do?

Well, the Holy Father would say, I believe, that you remember evil sins that you have committed and that others have committed against you. You remember them. But only for three reasons. One is to know how merciful God is, and that He forgives both of you. Secondly is to be motivated never to do it again. Third, because we are not to judge anybody or anything. As St. Paul says, “God came to save the sinners, of whom I am the first.” So we have to have that consciousness, or otherwise we are not going to get anywhere. So forgiveness is absolutely essential on the part of the Orthodox. And that even means forgiveness of Ukrainians or Russians and Carpathians or whatever. Without it, there is no unity. Forgiveness, by definition, is unity.

Another point for the Orthodox is that we not only have to desire unity, be ready to sacrifice everything essential to have it, to be able to distinguish what is essential from what is not, be able to forgive the past and admit our own sins and concentrate on ourselves, to do practical acts of charity and mercy – but also never, ever to say or do anything that would offend another person unnecessarily…There are so many ways we can charitably go out of our way to not hurt others… our churches speak about unity, and then every day attack each other in missionary work and so on. Even among the Orthodox, one of our jurisdictions starts a mission and three days later, another jurisdiction starts another mission on the same street. That’s just offensive.

… You all know the story of the Orthodox man who was shipwrecked on an island. When they came to rescue him, they found two churches there. The rescuer said, “Why are there two churches here? You’re all alone.” The Orthodox man said, “Yeah… that’s the one I go to and that’s the one I don’t.” That’s a deeply ingrained mentality among eastern Christians because of their history, their culture, their politics. But if that is not purged out somehow by the grace of God, forget about talking unity with Catholics. Orthodox need to first have unity among themselves, even culturally and nationally in regions where they live.

… So Orthodox need to be ready to go the extra mile. Jesus said, “If they ask for your coat, give them your shirt. If they ask you to go one mile, go two.” So our attitude has to be always toward bending over backwards, so to speak, to do the thing that will build up unity rather than give offense or cause hard feelings.

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. Suppose we had unity and half the [Orthodox] people didn’t come along. I think we should be ready to say goodbye to them if the unity is in God. We have to be people of unity, not because we will have more power in society, or be more popular, or George Bush will invite us to the White House. We have to have unity because God wants it, but it has to be unity in God, not unity in Ukrainianism or whatever… If the unity is not in God, in Christ, in the Spirit, who wants it anyway?

But history shows that the people who worked for unity in the Faith were usually persecuted, while the masses just went about their business.

Tolerate Issues

One last thing: I believe also that the Orthodox, if we were serious about unity, would need not only to desire it, sacrifice for it, forgive everything, admit our own sins, distinguish between what is essential and what is not, but also would have to be ready to practice “economium” on certain issues. This would mean, in my opinion, that we would have to be ready not just to admit that there can be different ways of singing, and different styles of liturgy, and different uses of psalms…there are some issues, especially between Orthodox and Catholics, that Orthodox would have to be ready to tolerate for a while (even though they think the issues are bad) for the sake of unity.

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.

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.

Other things we disagree on? Unleavened bread…Communion in one kind. Communion from reserved Sacrament. Celibacy of the clergy. We don’t think that’s a good rule… I don’t. I have 15 grandchildren. Baptism by pouring water… we believe baptism involves immersion. Multiple Masses by the same priest. Confirmation as a separate ritual. Holy Communion for children. Issues about divorce and remarriage. There are plenty of issues that don’t fall into the category of “absolutely essential” or “absolutely non-essential.”

This is true. But it is at the sufferance of Rome. Rome has infallibly proclaimed an absolute and particular jurisdiction over the entire universal church. It will last as long as the Pope of Rome and his successors choose to permit it.

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman
church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and
that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and
immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly
and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical
subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith
and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the
church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of
the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme
shepherd50. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart
from it without endangering his faith and salvation. This power of the supreme
pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal
jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles
by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular
flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs
is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St
Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour
is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it
is denied to none of those to whom honour is due."51 Furthermore, it follows
from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole
church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to
communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that
they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. And therefore we
condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the
supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it
should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what
is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government
of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of
the civil authority.

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs
the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful52, and that in all cases which fall
under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment53. The
sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not
subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment
thereupon54. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that
it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical
council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of
supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction
over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but
also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church
dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part,
but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his
is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over
all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

From the Canons and Decrees of the First Vatican Council

Other things we disagree on? Unleavened bread…Communion in one kind. Communion from reserved Sacrament. Celibacy of the clergy. We don’t think that’s a good rule… I don’t. I have 15 grandchildren. Baptism by pouring water… we believe baptism involves immersion. Multiple Masses by the same priest. Confirmation as a separate ritual. Holy Communion for children. Issues about divorce and remarriage. There are plenty of issues that don’t fall into the category of “absolutely essential” or “absolutely non-essential.”

This is a wonderful article; thank you for posting it!

As a Roman Catholic parishioner in an Eastern Catholic Church, there are some 'corrections' , or perhaps these are simply misunderstandings, in the above text.

First of all, the Holy Father is pope of the Catholic Church - west and east, which includes the Roman Catholic Church. There are 22 different Catholic Traditions, including Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian.

Fr. Hopko gets bonus points for acknowledging 'attachment to liturgy' as a stumbling block. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression from some of my Orthodox friends here at FR that their respective churches fear Vatican imposition. This has been a problem in the past, where well intentioned representatives from the Vatican burned the liturgical books of certain Eastern Churches (I speak here of my Maronite Catholic family which went along in order to remain faithful to the Magisterium). Much has changed since then. We now have the example of the Anglicans who re-united with the Vatican, on the stipulation they could retain their liturgy, derived from the Book of Common Prayer. The agreement was concluded with the understanding that certain aspects of their liturgy needed to be updated to bring it into conformity with the teachings of the Magisterium. This is also true of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church which reunited with Rome during the past century. Some of us were truly blessed to witness their liturgy, live on EWTN.

As for 'unleavened bread' and 'confirmation as a separate ritual', the majority (if not all) of the Eastern Catholic Churches have restored 'chrismation' along with the Sacrament of Baptism. There are also certain Eastern Catholic Churches that use unleavened bread - no problem whatsoever. Married clergy? All of the Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests, while some strongly encourage celibacy, for practical reasons.

My impression is that Father Hopko has not yet fully explored the Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome. Should he do so, he would gain great insight into how eastern theology blends perfectly into the Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches, like their Orthodox neighbors, fall under the leadership of a Patriarch.

I treasure this photograph of Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Peter Sfeir, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, meeting with Pope John Paul II. He serves not only as Patriarch of the Maronite Church but also as Cardinal. Following the death of JPII, (then) Cardinal Ratzinger called upon Cardinal Sfeir to organize and lead the 'Novendiale Mass' for all the Eastern Catholic Churches. Naturally, the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would open the door for a future pontiff, from the (former) Orthodox Churches. What a glorious celebration that would be!!

Hi. Thank you for your kind words. A few thoughts on your post...

First of all, the Holy Father is pope of the Catholic Church - west and east, which includes the Roman Catholic Church.

Well that's the Roman position. It is not the opinion of the Orthodox. We of course believe that we are the Catholic Church in its entirety. In the first millennium it was customary in both the East and the West to refer to the Church as Catholic and the faith as Orthodox. Hence correctly speaking we are Orthodox Catholics.

There are 22 different Catholic Traditions, including Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian.

On a personal note I am aware of the Eastern Rites since it was a stop off for me on my road to Orthodoxy.

That would be accurate to a degree.

This has been a problem in the past, where well intentioned representatives from the Vatican burned the liturgical books of certain Eastern Churches...

This was not limited to the Maronites. And even today efforts by Vatican bureaucrats to extend the blessings of the Vatican II liturgical reform to the Eastern Rite churches have not gone unnoticed though so far they have not enjoyed much success.

We now have the example of the Anglicans who re-united with the Vatican, on the stipulation they could retain their liturgy, derived from the Book of Common Prayer.

That's not entirely accurate. The Anglican Use is not a rite and permission for its use is up to the local ordinary. Its application thus far has been quite limited. It is true that a handful of former Anglican clergy who entered into communion with Rome have been re ordained with a dispensation for their being married. Some of them have been allowed to use the so called Anglican Use liturgy. But there is no provision for this being a permanent arrangement. There are no Anglo-Catholic seminaries or bishops and there is no one training priests in the Anglican liturgical rites.

The agreement was concluded with the understanding that certain aspects of their liturgy needed to be updated to bring it into conformity with the teachings of the Magisterium. This is also true of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church which reunited with Rome during the past century.

What parts of our liturgy do you anticipate will need to be updated? It has worked quite well for us I think.

These are not minor issues, though they are not beyond resolution. I think that it is in the matter of ecclesiology that you will find the problem. That is where the rubber is going to hit the road. Many of the claims of the papacy are simply not going to be accepted by Orthodoxy. I would suggest reading Fr. Hopko's other essay on the papacy for some ideas about our concerns. I don't agree with all of it. But many of the points he raises are serious issues. That article is linked in my #1 above.

I think Fr. Hopko is aware of the existence of the non Latin Rite churches in communion with the Pope of Rome. In fact I will go out on a limb here and say he probably knows more about them and their history than either you or I. That's just an educated guess based on his background though. The history of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates is not a source of good feelings for Orthodox. since most of them were erected by the papacy to draw off Orthodox Christians and to challenge the authority of the Orthodox Patriarchs. It was a serious and very un-canonical intrusion upon the rights of the Eastern Churches (the real ones) which has been a source of ill feelings for a long time. The so called Unia remains a stumbling block to the restoration of communion not an aid to that end.

Naturally, the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would open the door for a future pontiff, from the (former) Orthodox Churches. What a glorious celebration that would be!!

I think that the word "former" in front of the word "Orthodox" is quite telling about where we are both coming from. Orthodoxy is the faith of the undivided Church of the first millennium. You see Orthodoxy as something to be abandoned or made to conform to the Roman Church's magesterium (the end result would be the same). We see the process as not one of reunification but of the restoration of communion based on the return of the Latin Church to Holy Orthodoxy. In that future situation the Pope of Rome would again claim his place as primus inter pares among the Orthodox Catholic Hierarchs of the world.

But it would be without most of the theological baggage of the last thousand years that has cropped up in the west. The canons of the First Vatican Council especially are heresy to Orthodox Christians. This doesn't mean we don't want to revive the undivided Church of the first thousand years AD. Any Orthodox Christian who says he does not want that is in need of some serious spiritual counseling. But we believe that we are the Church. We don't see ourselves as a part of two halves. Orthodox Christianity is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ whole and complete. And you believe the same thing to be true of your church. That creates a problem.

Herein is the great tragedy of the present situation. There are for the first time in a thousand years honest people in both churches who are looking at each other and saying "How did this happen? This is not what God wanted." But the reality I think is that it has gone beyond the point of no return. Trent was a massive blow to any hope of reunification because of the theological innovations it codified. But IMHO the final nail in the coffin was Vatican I. That's a show stopper. The language in those decrees (see #3 above for one example) is flatly heretical to us. And it is so crystal clear that it just leaves no room for wiggling and parsing words. In so many ways our churches have grown apart. Your theology is now heavily based on the medieval scholasticism of Aquinas and Augustine, which is so inimical to Orthodoxy. This is true of your Eastern Churches too. They may have retained the outward forms of Eastern worship. But they are Roman Catholic in faith. In faith, ecclesiology, spirituality, and theology we have grown apart so far that we can't just put things back they way they were. Patriarch Bartholomew probably said it best when he noted that our two churches have become ontologically different.

You quote the fathers in an effort to support the papal monarchy. We quote the fathers to disprove it. We will never agree. If Rome agreed to anything even resembling Fr. Hopko's terms laid out in the other essay I linked it would cease to be the Roman Catholic Church. For us to restore communion with heretics would be to cease to be Orthodox. "Reunion" would mean that one or the other of our churches would wind up with the word "former" in front of its name. That is why I believe that absent a miracle of God there will never be a restoration of communion. And I weep with the angels because of it.

When people ask me, for example, why the Orthodox jurisdictions in America are not united, the answer is very clear: because our leaders don’t want it. If they wanted it, we would have had it yesterday.

This is an excellent article, and he is right on target about trying to seek out the essentials (on which no compromise is possible) and put the other things to the side.

He also makes a good point about the fact that internal unity is something that the Orthodox Church has to achieve first. Much of Orthodox disunity is the result of historical political situations, since the Orthodox churches were often much more subject to local governments than was the Catholic Church, whose leader and "main office," so to speak, was not in the same country as its "branch offices" and hence were a little freer. This freedom had to be fought for constantly and there was often great friction between temporal rulers and Catholic authorities; Henry VIII was essentially the first Western European monarch who permanently drove out Rome and made the State the head of the Church for his own purposes. But for historical reasons, one being the fact that many Orthodox churches found themselves fighting for their existence in suddenly Muslim countries, the Orthodox Church was never really able to assert its independence from the State, with the result that a lot of simply national rivalries carried over into religious life and are particularly reflected in the US, where all these national groups have to coexist and have contact with each other.

Hence the Orthodox Church in the US has a golden opportunity to unite and become the model for Orthodox unity - for doing what Fr. Hopko said, that is, sorting out what is essential from the massive accumulation of historical (but destructive) inessentials.

Roman Catholics believe that the schism will not end until the Orthodox become more like Rome, ie until a command structure is imposed over all Orthodox Churches - one that can make binding decisions.

You don't have to be Roman Catholic to believe that; it's pretty much tautological. How can the schism end if nobody on the Orthodox side has the authority to end it? (And by "nobody," I'm not necessarily talking about a single individual.)

And proposing that Rome simply surrender is completely unrealistic, and also illogical. (Is the Pope going to infallibly define for the whole church that he has no authority to infallibly define anything, and no authority outside the See of Rome? If we simply adopt the Orthodox model of authority, nobody on our side has the authority to end the schism either! You can hardly expect the Pope to exercise Papal authority in declaring that no Papal authority exists.)

Supposedly, y'all do have a "command structure" that can make "binding decisions" ... an ecumenical council. However, any attempt (by whom?) to call such a council to discuss reunion would no doubt split the Orthodox, and any reunion settlement arrived at would no doubt split you further.

And we haven't yet considered whether such a settlement would cause a schism on the Catholic side of the aisle. (It likely would.)

Perhaps the first step is to agree that neither the absolutist Orthodox position (the local bishop is the fullness of the church, and nobody has authority over him) nor the absolutist Catholic position (the Pope exercises full and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church, and has authority over every bishop everywhere) are tenable models for a post-schism church.

It's a mess. At least we're talking about the mess, but still: Come, Lord Jesus.

hello people,

As some of you might kow, im holder of Balkan Ping list, I live in Serbia and from Serbian-hungarian origin.
I live in Vojvodina, northern province of Serbia, where, although predominantly papulated with Serbs, also some 200,000 catholic Hugarians live. so far, inspite of all wars, pretty good relations between Ortodox and Catholics exist. so, as a man basicaly torned towards politics I cant enter in some religion discussion, due to the fact that im no expert in field of religion. I would like just to comment on Ortodox-catholic life in Serbia and customes concerning that life.
There are many mixed marriages, basicaly they are not even called that that is how much they are common in Serbia. Yet, there is a custom that when Catholic-Ortodox couple get married, some of them go to both churches to be wedd, in Ortodox and catholic in same day, also they baptise their children in both churches also in same day. some belief is among peoplethat both rituals must be respected if your parents are Catholic and Ortodox or babtism would not be concidered "true" and "right". So, my father, laso was baptised in both churches and some of my friends were wedd in both churches. I never saw that a person is both Catholic and Ortodox in same time, but people that are "Double-baptised" are commonly celebrating both Catholic and Ortodox hollidays, and later, upon them is will they declare themselves as catholics or Ortodox, yet even then, they and their famillies respect both customs. Also, when Serbian girl marries to catholic, she usualy brings hers family Saint-protector Icon into husbands house, and that is very unusual that women celebrates saint-protector, so, catholic home, accept an Ortodox custom. Even if that is not a case, Catholic family accepts Ortodox feasts and hollidays even in most modest manner, and young wife is even expected to prepare special dinner for Ortodox hollidays. Same thing goes when Catholic girl marries into Ortodox family, she brings catholic feasts and hollidays and she is also sxpected to prepare dinners or feasts on those days.
Anyway, that is laics wiew on Ortodox-Catholic agenda, even in small part of the world like Serbia is.

Campion,

Thanks for your comments. You have largely confirmed my own reservations. A couple quick points...

Assuming the major issues were overcome and we reached a point where we could live with the other differences (it needs to be remembered that there were differences between east and west before the schism) I can see several ways the schism could be ended. The two most likely would be either a Great Council of the Church or a gradual restoration of communion by some of the Orthodox Churches (they would have to be major ones to be taken seriously). The Schism did not start in 1054 (contrary to common belief). It was a slow motion divorce that took place over centuries. The 1054 schism was a local one between two patriarchs that did not even extend to the faithful subject the other. Hence Latins still communed in Constantinople and had their churches there. And Greeks still communed in Rome. Most Eastern Patriarchs remained in communion with Rome until the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. If there was a real breaking point that was probably it. But even after that there were local synods that had communion with Rome off and on for another couple of centuries.

A Great Council has been in the planning for several decades and much speculation exists as to the reasons for its not being convened so far. As for who can call it, in the absence of and Orthodox Emperor or the Patriarch of Rome the Ecumenical Patriarch is almost universally acknowledged to have that power. All major decisions in Orthodoxy have caused minor schisms. There are just some people for whom the word "new" is the same thing as "heresy." But we will deal with that if and when we get there. We generally all agree on the important things even if sometimes throw furniture at each other when we discuss calendars. :-)

And proposing that Rome simply surrender is completely unrealistic, and also illogical. (Is the Pope going to infallibly define for the whole church that he has no authority to infallibly define anything, and no authority outside the See of Rome? If we simply adopt the Orthodox model of authority, nobody on our side has the authority to end the schism either! You can hardly expect the Pope to exercise Papal authority in declaring that no Papal authority exists.)

Yep. That's pretty much what I think I covered in my last post. I am less concerned with who can call a council than I am with getting to the point where the council will be able to do anything.

And we haven't yet considered whether such a settlement would cause a schism on the Catholic side of the aisle. (It likely would.)

Rome has had the same problem we have had. Everything you have done in Council has been challenged by splinter groups. The so called "Old Catholics" from Vatican I and the various uber Catholic Traditionalist schismatics you have running around since Vatican II are the evidence. I never knew +John XXXIII was really a Jew and a Free Mason secretly bent on destroying your church until I was enlightened by one of the "True Catholic" web sites. Lord Have Mercy!

That's probably a good suggestion. I have often said that we Orthodox have been very good at pointing out what Primacy is not. Possibly out of our often knee jerk hostility to all things papal. For primacy clearly does mean more than just the right to sit at the head of the table or be the first one in a procession. It was thus in the early Church. The problem is that your Church has backed itself into a corner with the decrees of Vatican I. Those decrees are so crystal clear in their wording that I don't see anyway to parse the language or pretend they mean something other than that the Pope of Rome holds an immediate and absolute jurisdiction over the ENTIRE CHURCH and every bishop is subject to him. Add onto that the decree regarding the infallibility of the Pope independent of the Church and a council and we have what I have already characterized as a showstopper. Hence my deep pessimism.

Lest I end this post on such a gloomy note, it should be mentioned that this month representatives from Rome will be meeting (in Serbia!) with high ranking representatives of many of the world's Orthodox Churches to discuss this very issue (the Primacy of Rome). And in recent months we have seen a marked warming of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and Pope of Rome to the point where +Alexei was actually saying very nice things about +Benedict XVI. Who knows what may happen? All things are possible with God.

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.