A possible step towards unity?

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think Joe and the bishops are precisely peers, as in being ecclesiatically (or is it ecclesiologically?) equal. If that’s the case, why would he need to obey them in anything?

Joe and his buddies, if there are enough of them, can though, as far as my understanding takes me, veto bishops in council. They can even throw them out of “office” if I’m not mistaken.

Even so, as I said earlier,* "there has to be some leadership producing something subject to a veto (or not, as the case may be), no? And, if said leadership does produce something that would lead us to unity again, I for one would seriously hope that they would be able to convince joe and his buddies of its value. "* And I don’t believe we have anything yet that even approaches being sent to Joe and Co. for their approval or veto. If so…where is it?

The laity can attempt to change their bishop’s mind. They obviously cannot throw him out of office and install a successor, however, as that would require for several bishops to be complicit in what would essentially be an act of schism.

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps a wrong impression has been given that the laity actually holds power, they don’t. Refer to the Nikonian Reforms where a very large portion of the laity rebelled against the bishops.

The laity as a whole confirm the decisions of the bishops. Not one, not a subsection, but the entirety of it.

How is that not power? Especially since according to the posts here, they can veto what bishops agree to in council?

 

[steve_b]

I don’t think Joe and the bishops are precisely peers, as in being ecclesiatically (or is it ecclesiologically?) equal. If that’s the case, why would he need to obey them in anything?

In order to have “peer review” I think you have to have folks considered “peers”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8752930&postcount=215 Maybe Hesychios used an unfortunate analogy but I didn’t see any Orthodox disagree with the analogy.

Thus I was merely going by terms being used by Orthodox members here, and no objections were made to the terms.
M:

Joe and his buddies, if there are enough of them, can though, as far as my understanding takes me, veto bishops in council. They can even throw them out of “office” if I’m not mistaken.

Re: veto in council, that’s my understanding also, based on posts here from Orthodox. As we’ve seen later in later posts, apparantly they can’t throw a bishop out of office
M:

Even so, as I said earlier,* "there has to be some leadership producing something subject to a veto (or not, as the case may be), no? And, if said leadership does produce something that would lead us to unity again, I for one would seriously hope that they would be able to convince joe and his buddies of its value. "* And I don’t believe we have anything yet that even approaches being sent to Joe and Co. for their approval or veto. If so…where is it?

I’d like to see the official rules that all the Orthodox subscribe to, guiding the “laity” in the veto process.

 

[Mickey]

I live near a Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) monastery, and attend daily matins and vespers whenever I can.

I love ROCOR!

I am particularly fond of Holy Cross Hermitage and Holy Trinity Monastery.

 

[Hesychios]

… if that were the case, and the East rejects the pope’s call, wouldnt that make them in sense wishing for the divide to continue? I see no reason other than petty selfishness and arrogance as to why they wouldn’t even want to participate. My $.02 on the matter.

Well, you are making a hypothetical case here which anyone can make.

Let us say the Patriarch of Moscow calls a council and invites all those groups, and the Pope of Rome refuses to participate, wouldnt that make the Roman Catholics in a sense wishing for the divide to continue?

Or let’s say the Pope of Alexandria calls a council and invites all those groups, and the Pope of Rome refuses to participate, wouldnt that make the Roman Catholics in a sense wishing for the divide to continue?

There could be a whole lot of individual reasons, even a combination of reasons, why other Christian groups would not participate that are not derived from a desire to continue schism.

The Roman Catholics have developed the idea that only a Pope can call a Council, standing on that principle alone he would be obliged to refuse to come, and that could give the world the impression that he wants the schism to continue.

However, if everyone continues to dialogue they can entertain the possibility of getting together in larger non-binding working groups (larger groups than we have had so far). They don’t even have to have permanent organizational merging as a goal, they can just look for and discuss ideas on how to cooperate more closely and go from there. It could result in a series of micro-agreements on policies and practices, joint daclarations on morals that everyone could mutually agree to promote and defend. Perhaps we can start to model how the church could be considered ‘as one’ again.

It would be very encouraging to most people to see the various Apostolic Christian groups working together in a very public, mutually respectful way.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I live near a Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) monastery, and attend daily matins and vespers whenever I can.

I love ROCOR!

I am particularly fond of Holy Cross Hermitage and Holy Trinity Monastery.

I’ve been to both, but live closest to and frequent Holy Cross Monastery on Long Island. There’s a lot to love about each and all!

But that’s the joy of being an EASTERN CHRISTIAN - you can respectfully and more fully appreciate the traditions on each side - Catholic and Orthodox!

At the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, we have much more in common than that which sets us apart …

Peace be with you!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Perhaps we can start to model how the church could be considered ‘as one’ again.

It would be very encouraging to most people to see the various Apostolic Christian groups working together in a very public, mutually respectful way.

Let us pray!

 

[russialover]

Hesychios, if Rome didn’t respond to a call of a council from Moscow, then yes he would be wishing the divide to continue. However, if the pope doesn’t have the authority to call the council, who does?

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios, if Rome didn’t respond to a call of a council from Moscow, then yes he would be wishing the divide to continue. However, if the pope doesn’t have the authority to call the council, who does?

I am not saying that would be the only reason people won’t come, it was an example of the kind of things that complicate the situation…

I am not claiming the Pope doesn’t have the right to call a council, but I do suggest that the right to call a council is not limited to the Pope, which (in my example) would be a problem for Roman Catholics before anyone even took their seats. Other churches have other concerns, and we must remember that a call to council is not a command, it is an invitation.

 

[Nine_Two]

How is that not power? Especially since according to the posts here, they can veto what bishops agree to in council?

It is a passive power, I suppose.

 

[Nine_Two]

In order to have “peer review” I think you have to have folks considered “peers”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8752930&postcount=215 Maybe Hesychios used an unfortunate analogy but I didn’t see any Orthodox disagree with the analogy.

Thus I was merely going by terms being used by Orthodox members here, and no objections were made to the terms.

It was an analogy, and the extent to which you are taking the analogy has been objected to.

Re: veto in council, that’s my understanding also, based on posts here from Orthodox. As we’ve seen later in later posts, apparantly they can’t throw a bishop out of office

I believe the Quintisex Council laid down the mechanisms by which the laity can begin the process of deposing a bishop, only a Holy Synod can depose a bishop.

I’d like to see the official rules that all the Orthodox subscribe to, guiding the “laity” in the veto process.

This is the closest thing we have to “official rules”. However keep in mind while reading that we consider the spirit of the law much more important than the writen law.

 

[steve_b]

It is a passive power, I suppose.

If they have veto power, that’s active in my understanding of power.

 

[dcointin]

Thanks so much for this post - it is refreshing to see an “outside” perspective so to speak in this thread!

If it were only as simple as eliminating Papal Primacy, reunion may have been possible a long time ago. And yes, the attitude in Rome had to and did change before the climate could be ripe for meaningful dialogue and reconciliation. We cannot exactly say that Rome was kind to Eastern Catholicism either, particularly in the US, at the turn of the last century, so your “read into” sections of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is not unfounded. But much has changed since!

That said, much has also developed on both sides since the One, Holy, Apostolic Church became divided, and that is why reconciliation (a penitential sacrament in both faith traditions) will require an understanding of such in order to progress and ultimately succeed.

Yes, it’s not quid pro quo by any stretch, but it is not unilateral change that will make this a reality either.

The issue of governance still exists even today within each community, Orthodox and Catholic. The Catholic Church has a structure that conflicts in many regards with the synodal model of Orthodoxy and the early Church - that much must be and is acknowledged, but it has also progressed as a result of inner reflection and meaningful dialogue with the Orthodox. By the same token, this structure and reference to a “central authority” has sustained unity within Catholicism depite massive and frequent geopolitical change over the course of history.

The decentralized synodal model running in combination with multiple levels of geopolitcal change have created a somewhat fractured brotherhood if you will in Orthodoxy. In recent history, multiple geographic displacements of the faithful also coincided with these changes, presenting further great challenges to Orthodox hierarchs and clergy in maintaining the faith. The Orthodox Church in America is an interesting case study in that regard - not to be at all critical of OCA - just the opposite - we are respectful of how this Church has had to adapt on multiple occasions to social and political change, surviving to continue to proclaim God’s word to an increasingly diverse community of believers. We respect the challenges they have confronted, with love of God and His people. The strength and conviction of Orthodox faithful today is a living testament to their efforts and success.

The issue of governance will nonetheless need to be agreed to the satisfaction of all if unity is to be achieved and sustained. The lessons of history should be invaluable in this regard.

Please keep posting here - you’re opinions and observations are most welcomed and challenge us all!

Excellent post!

One challenge that inhibits reunion is that there is no one single understanding of primacy or method of church governance among all Orthodox churches. Some view primacy as strictly honorary, others are encompassing some authority but exercised synodally, others as exercised more directly, etc. Until we can reach a consensus among ourselves, dialogue will continue to be difficult and any agreement impossible.

I believe that some sort of headship is a good thing, and the divisions within Orthodoxy, which we have so far been unable to reconcile, will almost certainly continue without it. This is perhaps Orthodoxy’s greatest weakness, and one that a pope (in the best sense of the word) would be ideally suited to address.

 

[steve_b]

I believe the Quintisex Council laid down the mechanisms by which the laity can begin the process of deposing a bishop, only a Holy Synod can depose a bishop.

Actually I was asking about the process the laity takes in vetoing a council
N:

This is the closest thing we have to “official rules”. However keep in mind while reading that we consider the spirit of the law much more important than the writen law.

Thanks.

I see what you mean about spirit rather than letter.

Just being transparent, imo this explanation that begins the canons, I find difficult just as the prelude warns.

"*Taken by themselves, *the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial. People will say ‘either enforce them all or discard them completely.’ But taken as a whole within the wholeness of Orthodox life — theological, historical, canonical, and spiritual — these canons do assume their proper place and purpose and show themselves to be a rich source for discovering the living Truth of God in the Church. In viewing the canons of the Church, the key factors are Christian knowledge and wisdom which are borne from technical study and spiritual depth. There is no other ‘key’ to their usage; and any other way would be according to the Orthodox faith both unorthodox and unchristian.”

One other question. Does the OCA have the same canon laws as the other Orthodox Churches?

 

[Nine_Two]

If they have veto power, that’s active in my understanding of power.

As has already been stated quite a few times, veto is the wrong word for it. I originally said veto, and have acknowledged that isn’t accurate. They confirm the bishops, a rather passive power.

 

[Nine_Two]

One other question. Does the OCA have the same canon laws as the other Orthodox Churches?

You mean the Canons of the Councils? Why wouldn’t it?

 

[steve_b]

As has already been stated quite a few times, veto is the wrong word for it. I originally said veto, and have acknowledged that isn’t accurate. They confirm the bishops, a rather passive power.

Okay, what if they don’t confirm the bishops, such as Florence?

 

[Mickey]

I believe that some sort of headship is a good thing

Christ is the Head of the Holy Orthodox Church…and our unity is in the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve_b]

You mean the Canons of the Councils? Why wouldn’t it?

I ask because of the prelude statement introducing the canons.

“Taken by themselves, the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial. People will say ‘either enforce them all or discard them completely.’”

Are all the Orthodox Churches in agreement with those same councils and canons?

 

[Hesychios]

I ask because of the prelude statement introducing the canons.

*“Taken by themselves, *the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial. People will say ‘either enforce them all or discard them completely.’”

Are all the Orthodox Churches in agreement with those same councils and canons?

Yes, we have inherited all the same canons.

Actually, your church inherited them too. They belong to you too.