Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens: Will the Two Lungs of the Church Breathe Together Again?

Catholic Online ^ | 5/21/10 | Deacon Keith Fournier

[tcg]

The move toward full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is prompted by the Holy Spirit. It is the most important development of the Third Christian Millennium. It has extraordinary implications for the West, indeed for the whole world, at a critical time in history. It will continue and it will result in the healing of the wounds which for too long have separated the Church.

Yes, the Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens. Will the Two Lungs of the Church, East and West Breathe Together Again? As we approach the celebration of Pentecost, the Birthday of the Church, let us pray that it does indeed happen - for the sake of a world still waiting to be set free and reborn into the New World of the Church.

[SumProVita]

“....at the dawn of what I believe is a new missionary age.”

Ohhhhhhh yeah.....I believe that we ARE very close to this new missionary age. It is already beginning.

[chatham]

“The Four Marks of the Church are a group of four adjectives - one, holy, catholic and apostolic - that describe the marks or distinguished characteristics ...”

Those are the Pillars of the Catholic Church . If I got it right!

[gusopol3]

Can’t help but notice that he writes Protestantism out of the Christian Church (unless he means it’s the heart of the Christian Churh as opposed to only a lung?) I read about “anti-Catholic bigotry” on FR posts all the time, I suppose tit-for -tat is something we all engage in.

[cizinec]

Don’t worry. There are plenty of Catholics who “long” for “communion” between Catholics and Protestants as well.

I used to be Eastern Catholic, but am now Orthodox. Having lived the “reunification” I can tell you that it is simply Rome running the show, with all it’s dysfunctional policies. When my group rejoined (1596), priests could be married (they’ve changed that almost everywhere and without discussion), they changed the liturgy (which they claim to love), they changed the theology and inserted as many Latin practices as possible in every parish that didn’t fight back.

What most of these guys “long” for is for all Christians to say “uncle” to the pope so they can go to a church with some smells and bells and take communion.

Trust me, the less you’re wanted, the better all you’ll be.

[Samogon]

I have my doubts.
Russian Orthodox Church is spearheading the process of unification, and that fact alone raises my suspicion: the Russian Church is known by it's collaboration with devilish communist regime and long prior history of been a tsarist government branch. They exhibit disturbing totalitarian tendencies, which may be inline with Catholic, but are contradictory to Christ’ teaching.
There is only one Church that is Christ's Body and I don't think it needs Pope or other bureaucracies.

[don-o]

The restoration of communion between Moscow and the ROCOR demonstrates to me that something good is blowing in the wind.

[Pyro7480]

What most of these guys “long” for is for all Christians to say “uncle” to the pope so they can go to a church with some smells and bells and take communion.

Wow, how very "Christian" of you to say such a thing.

[bronx2]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are fraught with problems which impede true spiritual growth. The Russian branch has been and probably still is controlled by KGB agents who fake belief in God. The remaining Orthodox groups are so nationalistic that one would think they are still living in 1914. Oh wait, they still use the Julian calendar.
Rome would do well not to seek immediate reunification with the Schematic but keep a polite distance and use them to battle the secular humanistic agnostic groups. The growth of Eastern Orthodox has been stunted since 1054 and the reasons must be explored before any meaningful steps of unity are taken. Perhaps they are not directed by the Holy Spirit.

[Pyro7480]

Oh wait, they still use the Julian calendar.

All use the Julian Easter, but I thought most use a modified form of the Gregorian now.

[cizinec]

“Wow, how very “Christian” of you to say such a thing.”

That’s hilarious after reading most of the comments on this site about the Orthodox Church.

Having *lived* through what Rome actually *does* to Orthodox who choose to keep their liturgy and come into communion with Rome, I can tell you what it’s like. If it isn’t very Christian, it’s not because of me.

And yes, Orthodox Churches were almost destroyed by Communism. Good grief, is that our fault? Probably the strongest national Orthodox church out there is the Serbian Church. The Russians are still sucked into being controlled by the state. The Greeks are as much a part of the state as the politicians.

I think the real difference is the fact that we recognize our problems as being worldly problems in the church. The Latins believe all problems to be external to it, as they believe the pope (a person) has special knowledge given by the *office.* It’s a different ecclesiology that, while granting worldly success, ultimately fails to provide pastoral care.

That’s my opinion. If I were to agree with you, I’d be a Latin. I don’t despise anyone, but I’m not going to change my view because you see your view as more “Christian” than mine.

[cizinec]

“The growth of Eastern Orthodox has been stunted since 1054 and the reasons must be explored before any meaningful steps of unity are taken. “

The reason is easily explored.

Islam. The Crusades. Integration into government structures. Communism.

Lest you forget, our military is protecting Albanian Muslims who are burning down Orthodox churches in Kosovo. How about exploring that reason for a while?

[cizinec]

All use the dating of Easter except the Finns. Most of the Orthodox *Churches* use the Latin calendar for fixed feasts/fasts. Most Orthodox *Christians* are members of churches that use the Julian Calendar (i.e., they are Slavs, not Arabs or Greeks).

Local autonomy can be confusing at times, but it provides for more freedom to minister to the local population.

[bronx2]

Blame everything on the Crusades and Communism. Much of the advance of Communism can be attributed to the conduct of the Russian Church in the 19th Century and their attachment to the nobles and the court of the Czar instead of the peasants. The Crusades were an attempt to rest the Holy Lands from Islam but your using the Crusades as an excuse for the ills of Eastern Orthodoxy merely masks the true problems within the entity.
Islam historically has been a problem but the Eastern Orthodox negotiations with Islam since the 7th Century have been abysmal. I am astonished you didn't use the Inquisition or Galileo to bolster your effete contentions. In essence, Eastern Orthodoxy must look within itself and take responsibility for its shortcomings instead of using others as convenient excuses for its failures. Perhaps a takeover by Rome , hostile or otherwise, would be in its best interests.

[Pyro7480]

Having *lived* through what Rome actually *does* to Orthodox who choose to keep their liturgy and come into communion with Rome, I can tell you what it’s like.

So that justifies your false portrayal of the "Latins"? It's true that the Eastern Catholics haven't always been treated well by the "Latins," but does that justify such animosity? That's what I'm pointing out.

And yes, Orthodox Churches were almost destroyed by Communism. Good grief, is that our fault?

No, I think the other commenters had a longer-term view of the decline of the Eastern Orthodox.

I think the real difference is the fact that we recognize our problems as being worldly problems in the church. The Latins believe all problems to be external to it, as they believe the pope (a person) has special knowledge given by the *office.* It’s a different ecclesiology that, while granting worldly success, ultimately fails to provide pastoral care.

Not at all- I don't think any serious "Latin" denies there are internal problems in the Catholic Church.

[old republic]

Can’t help but notice that he writes Protestantism out of the Christian Church (unless he means it’s the heart of the Christian Churh as opposed to only a lung?) I read about “anti-Catholic bigotry” on FR posts all the time, I suppose tit-for -tat is something we all engage in.

The Catholic Church uses the word "Church" in a different way than most "protestant" Christians. The Catholic Church believes that in order to be properly called a "Church" under the technical definition, a group must have a valid and recognized claim to the priesthood through Apostolic Succession by the laying on of hands. (You have to be ordained in a proper way by someone validly ordained and who themselves was validly ordained by someone who was validly ordained all of the way back to the Apostles.)

Since in the view of the Catholic Church protestants don't ordain in a way considered valid for Apostolic Succession to occur, most "protestant" denominations don't have valid priests/bishops and thus don't fall under the Catholic Church's technical definition of what a "church" is. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church generally recognizes most "protestant" denominations as Christians with valid baptisms.

The Orthodox are considered by the Catholic Church to have valid priesthood with valid bishops. In fact, the Orthodox are just about the only major group of Christians that are considered a "Church" in the Catholic meaning of that word. That is probably why the author of the article is talking about the Orthodox without mentioning the "Protestants". The "Protestants are considered Christians, but not as Churches under the Catholic's ancient and technical definition of the word. This issue is further blurred by the fact that many Protestants have a slightly different take on what the word "church" means than the Catholic Church does. I hope this makes things a little clearer.

[gusopol3]

Thank you; very clearly explained, and,as a matter of fact, I agree with them; I see Protestant churches in terms of local assemblages of believers.

[gusopol3]

And, of course, a mystical Universal Church.

[cizinec]

“he Crusades were an attempt to rest the Holy Lands from Islam but your using the Crusades as an excuse for the ills of Eastern Orthodoxy merely masks the true problems within the entity.”

First, in April 1204 the Crusaders invaded, sacked and burned Constantinople. That was one of many events, but one major one that drove a spike through the heart of the Christian Empire of the Middle East. Get your facts straight.

Second, you apparently skipped over the part where I stated that the marriage between the church and the state was one of the major factors that has caused us great difficulties. I am, by no means, blaming everyone else. However, if you can’t even admit the sacking of Constantinople, I doubt you will admit to anything Latins have *ever* done wrong. This is why there is no trust between us and the Latins.

[old republic]

You’re welcome. I’m glad that the previous explanation made these murky waters a little clearer.