A possible step towards unity?

[Nine_Two]

Return the pope to the dyptichs and do not claim that the contested doctrine are heretical and do not try to change the doctrinal wholeness of the papal Church. Pay respectful attention to the Petrine ministry…and work out in advance what that means for Patriarchal Sees.

I don’t see anything else necessary for the resumption of communion.

I also see the resumption of communion as the only way through to the grace that would make us genuinely brothers and sisters in faith.

M.

Returning the Bishop of Rome to the dyptichs is an obvious one and will be the action by which Communion will be restored, not a requirement to restore it.

The rest of what you wrote, sounds very much like a “Our way or the high way” sort of thing, couched to avoid mention of “the contested doctrine”.

 

[hazcompat]

Are you aware of the presence of The Holy Spirit of God within yourself. Is His presence/absence obvious in your neighbor?

peace

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Returning the Bishop of Rome to the dyptichs is an obvious one and will be the action by which Communion will be restored, not a requirement to restore it.

The rest of what you wrote, sounds very much like a “Our way or the high way” sort of thing, couched to avoid mention of “the contested doctrine”.

Asking that you guys cease to claim “that the contested doctrines are heretical” is not a “my way or the highway” attitude, for this one simple reason:

It does not in any way require you to accept any of the contested doctrines in any form whatsoever.

We believe that they are orthodox, and that they have not added to the deposit of faith. Our faith in that belief is confident enough that we are willing to hand you a blank check, by which you would be entitled to continue to deny whatever you feel we’ve added… any of these matters, like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility… we’re convinced that what you’d be denying, we don’t actually believe anyway. We really are.

So not contesting the orthodoxy of the disputed doctrines is not a “my way or the highway” attitude. Asking that of you requires no change or addition whatsoever on your part… all it asks is that you believe us when we say, “We actually agree with what you say on this doctrine,” and when we say, “You are free to refuse to accept whatever part of it that you consider heterodox, and we will disown that interpretation/part of it.”

I do not yet think the typical Orthodox mind has grasped the extent to which the Catholic Church today is willing to admit that every contested part of these doctrines stems from Latin expressions - and therefore expendable components - rather than core concepts of these doctrines.

SIDE NOTE: The lack of understanding of what I’ve just tried to explain is, by the way, the source of the cognitive dissonance found in discussions over the “Ratzinger Proposal” (which asked only two things: that Orthodox accept that Rome is not in heresy, and that Rome require nothing from the eastern churches that was not already a reality in the first millennium): does that not mean that the Orthodox should be allowed to deny some of these “contested” doctrines?

Many Orthodox - and eastern Catholics - say yes. Some Latin Catholics would be tempted to say no… and those from any church who understand this “blank check” we want you to accept understand that the question itself is meaningless: you don’t really deny these doctrines anyway… only the Latin formulations of them which are in no way universally binding. (Original sin is the best example I can think of for this…)

 

[Formosus]

“We” as in the Catholic Church are not willing to give the Orthodox a “blank check.” Unity has not occurred yet because Catholic ecclesiology (and yes I am including Eastern Catholics since we are stuck under the same ecclesiology, just a bit more removed then our Latin brethren) is so different then Orthodox ecclesiology. Roman congregations making decisions for Eastern Churches, and the issues concerning Roman supremacy have yet to be fully worked out. Even the Ravenna document does not address that. Further, the Ratzinnger proposal would be great if the Latins had the same understanding of how the Church functioned in the first millennium as the Eastern Orthodox do, but we don’t. Otherwise Rome would not have came down on the extremely similar Zogby initiative in the mid 90s. If Rome was serious about true collegiality as VII and other documents claim, then perhaps one could claim that the Orthodox are being a bit sour about the whole thing. As it stands now, they are in the right in their insistence that we are not yet ready for union.

 

[Vico]

Some Efforts

We have the Ravenna document from 2007:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

And the SCOBA response from 2009:

“The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation hopes and prays that the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will continue to progress, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in its discussion of complex and disputed ecclesiological questions in the years ahead.”

scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html

And many other sessions:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/index.htm

 

[theidler]

Nonetheless, I still hope for that unity between East and West one day. There is nothing wrong in it. I don’t understand the differences that all of you are discussing very well, so I cannot comment. But I truly, truly believe that the Orthodox and the Catholics are all one and the same, divided but the same Church. It is a tragedy to me that we cannot overcome our differences, especially in these times.

 

[Nine_Two]

Asking that you guys cease to claim “that the contested doctrines are heretical” is not a “my way or the highway” attitude, for this one simple reason:

With all due respect, to say that the Pope is not supreme over the other Bishops, and is not infallible under any circumstances, but that it is alright if you not only believe that, but teach it, is to speak out of both sides of the mouth, so to speak. It is a contradiction. It is a difference in faith. We are not so schitzophrenic as that.

Syncratism won’t do it. Either the pope is supreme or he isn’t. There is no room for one part of the church to believe he is, and the other part to disagree. Either he is infallible in some situations or he isn’t. It cannot be taught by one church and scoffed at by others.

One criticism that Catholics often bring against Orthodox is that they don’t have a solid teaching, that answers will change depending on who is giving them.
Is this not doing the exact same thing?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And the SCOBA response from 2009:

“The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation hopes and prays that the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will continue to progress, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in its discussion of complex and disputed ecclesiological questions in the years ahead.”

scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html

Please have a look at the most recent document issued by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation - October 2010.

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future
scoba.us/articles/2855.html

The day before issuing this, they reasserted their plea to have the dates commonly set for Pascha and the Nativity.

 

[Vico]

Please have a look at the most recent document issued by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation - October 2010.

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future
scoba.us/articles/2855.html

The day before issuing this, they reasserted their plea to have the dates commonly set for Pascha and the Nativity.

Thank you, I had not read this one before. It is really positive.

 

[dvdjs]

I am not going to say that the Orthodox are at fault for the schism when I don’t actually believe it. History doesn’t support it. We can be nice to one another and still face the facts.

Ahhh, yes…“History”. Finding a relatively unbiased, balanced account of history can sometimes be a taunting and very time consuming task in itself–not to mention costly.

Beautiful. This takes us back to post 65. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8714869&postcount=65 And underscores why I think the call to a deeper more rigorous and less polemical sense of history is an imperative step to unity.

Or as we gather from Fr, Taft, so highly learned in Byzantine history:

Orthodoxy need to undertake its own examination of conscience and adopt a less polemic view of history. … [progress to unity] continue to be plagued by failure to accept and confront respective responsibility for “a dolorous past.” … Fr. Taft pointed to the need for steps like abandoning “selective histories” and adopting “shared history” that would be based on common hermeneutic principles.

A history of the meeting between Humbertus and Cerularius might start with the the basic question: why were the Papal legates sent to Constantinople. In the interest of a common history, we should be able to agree on the importance of the pre-schism acts of desecration of the Eucharist of the Latins by EO clergy in setting the stage for what happened next.

And we can ask: is there any support in the mainstream of the EOC for this conduct? Is it possible that we get away from sense of Byzantine praxis as the only thing allowable? At least enough to talk about it - something that Cerularius seemed to feel himself above. Can we also agree that his own spirit of arrogance and intrigue were major contributing factors to all that went wrong? A spirit that led to his indictment for treason and heresy by the Byzantines.

There is a lot to be gained by working to a thorough and rigorous sense of history. Just claiming what history says, or taking every historical criticism as calumny avails absolutely nothing.

 

[dvdjs]

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future
scoba.us/articles/2855.html

Whatever we hear from the pessimists, we have the great encouragement of what is actually happening. Most of the pessimists haven’t been around all that long in Orthodoxy, and don;t seem to appreciate the great speed at which things are moving together.

Here is some history:
Less than a century ago things were a complete mess. Police were stationed at Divine Liturgy in my cradle parish to forestall rioting between faithful Greek Catholics and nascent Orthodox. As splits hardened, there was great enmity and absolute proscription against contact. This sense prevailed even as recently as thirty years ago.

And now: the SCOBA document is a big step. So was the Balamand statement. And at the grass roots, BCC and ACROD seminarians have not only socialized but have also held services together. Anyone who looked at the links I gave on Mother Theodora, might have been amazed to see the cooperation of and Orthodox monastery in setting up a new BC one. The Orthodox women were full participants in the service, not only vesting Mother Theodora, but also approaching the chalice.

The complete turnabout in our perceptions of each other and our attitudes toward each other is stunning - from rioting and cold hostility to joint celebration in a matter of decades. This is momentous history that is happening before our very eyes. Those who are walking in the wrong direction and have their facing pointing away from the action, apparently don’t see it. Too bad. It is spectacular.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Whatever we hear from the pessimists, we have the great encouragement of what is actually happening. Most of the pessimists haven’t been around all that long in Orthodoxy, and don;t seem to appreciate the great speed at which things are moving together.

Here is some history:
Less than a century ago things were a complete mess. Police were stationed at Divine Liturgy in my cradle parish to forestall rioting between faithful Greek Catholics and nascent Orthodox. As splits hardened, there was great enmity and absolute proscription against contact. This sense prevailed even as recently as thirty years ago.

And now: the SCOBA document is a big step. So was the Balamand statement. And at the grass roots, BCC and ACROD seminarians have not only socialized but have also held services together. Anyone who looked at the links I gave on Mother Theodora, might have been amazed to see the cooperation of and Orthodox monastery in setting up a new BC one. The Orthodox women were full participants in the service, not only vesting Mother Theodora, but also approaching the chalice.

***The complete turnabout in our perceptions of each other and our attitudes toward each other is stunning ***- from rioting and cold hostility to joint celebration in a matter of decades. This is momentous history that is happening before our very eyes. Those who are walking in the wrong direction and have their facing pointing away from the action, apparently don’t see it. Too bad. It is spectacular.

Well put my friend! I do believe that we as Byzantine Catholics in America can more deeply appreciate the current level of ecumenical dialogue, especially given the relatively recent yet tumultuous history of our people and our church here in the US. As mentioned, many of our BC seminarians and priests, young and old, were blessed by the loving mentorship of + ACROD Metropolitan Nicholas of blessed memory. The number of those BC clergy and faithful who attended his funeral services were indeed a testament and tribute not only to this holy man, but to the real progress that was made by virtue of his leadership and mutual fellowship with our BC hierarchs and clergy. We should not let this be a passing memory, but push forward to make it a legacy!

“Because you have seen Me, you have believed …” ! [John 20:29]

 

[steve_b]

Mutual agreement and approval aside, I still fear that we have not reached a point where the faithful would fully embrace reunity. However, there is a good deal of leadership coming from the top these days. A somewhat dated and light-heartedly presented example is a good one nonetheless:

Correct me if I’m mistaken about the Orthodox, but my impression is, based on many conversations on these threads, Re: the Orthodox, the hierarchy says go, and the rank and file can override them. Joe six pak in the pew has just as much say in the matter as a bishop. For Catholics, the hierarchy says go whatever go is defined to be, and everybody goes. Joe six pak doesn’t have a vote. Therefore, “mutual” agreement and approval, has a different meaning for Orthodox than it does for Catholics. Is that a fair assessment of the Orthodox position?

 

[Mickey]

With all due respect, to say that the Pope is not supreme over the other Bishops, and is not infallible under any circumstances, but that it is alright if you not only believe that, but teach it, is to speak out of both sides of the mouth, so to speak. It is a contradiction. It is a difference in faith. We are not so schitzophrenic as that.

Syncratism won’t do it. Either the pope is supreme or he isn’t. There is no room for one part of the church to believe he is, and the other part to disagree. Either he is infallible in some situations or he isn’t. It cannot be taught by one church and scoffed at by others.

Yes indeed. I believe it will be a very very long time before there is some type of union. Time will tell…by the grace of God.

 

[Nine_Two]

Accusing those you disagree with of being “Pessimists” does nothing to create a spirit of dialogue, or to further your cause.
Perhaps we are pessimistic, but so far nothing has been done to show us we shouldn’t be.

 

[Nine_Two]

Correct me if I’m mistaken about the Orthodox, but my impression is, based on many conversations on these threads, Re: the Orthodox, the hierarchy says go, and the rank and file can override them. Joe six pak in the pew has just as much say in the matter as a bishop. For Catholics, the hierarchy says go whatever go is defined to be, and everybody goes. Joe six pak doesn’t have a vote. Therefore, “mutual” agreement and approval, has a different meaning for Orthodox than it does for Catholics. Is that a fair assessment of the Orthodox position?

Traditionally the laity as a whole can over-ride the Episcopacy as a whole. Vice versa is probably the same, although I can’t think of an example of it happening.

 

[dvdjs]

Re: the Orthodox, the hierarchy says go, and the rank and file can override them. Joe six pack in the pew has just as much say in the matter as a bishop.

No this is all wrong. Even in the OCA, where the concept of conciliarity reaches toward congregationalism, decisions are made finally by he Holy Synod. Even in cases where lay councils cast votes, for example on candidates for Metropolitan, the vote is strictly advisory to the Holy Synod.

 

[dvdjs]

Accusing those you disagree with of being “Pessimists” does nothing to create a spirit of dialogue, or to further your cause.
Perhaps we are pessimistic, but so far nothing has been done to show us we shouldn’t be.

The notion of varying degrees of optimism, or conversely pessimism, had already been raised on the thread. You also stipulate that you and unnamed others are perhaps pessimistic. How is using the word pessimistic to refer to this “we” an inaccurate characterization; how is it accusatory?

The fact is, in the post in which I use the word “pessimists”, I gave a time-line of progress on in reconciliation of very bitter, very recent opponents. That is not “nothing”. In the spirit of dilaogue let’s talk about these facts - rather than merely dismissing them as nothing.

 

[FrancisB]

Traditionally the laity as a whole can over-ride the Episcopacy as a whole. Vice versa is probably the same, although I can’t think of an example of it happening.

This is true of any group–religious or otherwise–at any time. The leadership only ever exists because the people allow them to exist. Even from a spiritual perspective the whole church, which is primarily comprised of lay members, are the Body of Christ. The truth is that many “cultural” Catholics do not feel the need to accept whatever is handed down from above, but that many “traditional” Catholics feel it is a matter of salvation to do so. Of course many that refused to accept what was handed down from above simply left the church; that was the way that they voted. Look at how many churches were closed in the last few decades and tell me that the Catholic faithful cannot override the bishops by walking away. It would seem healthier to me to have a means to by which the faithful could voice their opinions without ripping the community apart to do so.

In an odd way, though, this cuts to the heart of the issue. It’s all about primacy, but it’s not just about the pope. The real issue that needs to be resolved is whether the church is better understood as a hierarchy with the pope at the top and the people at the bottom, or as a congregation with priests and hierarchs as servants to the people. The fact that the pope is styled “Servant of the Servants of God” does suggest that at least at some point we understood things differently than we do now. The history of Western Europe demanded some changes: first to overcome the lack of a unified government, then to combat Protestantism, then to protect the papacy from the unification efforts in the 19th Century, then to fight modernism at the beginning of the 20th. I would not deem it my place to condemn the decisions made by men greater than I to protect the church through these changes. That said, I’m not sure that we stand to benefit by seeing the shaping of the role of the papacy as anything other than a by-product of political necessity from a past that no longer exists. And clearly our Holy Father is willing to work towards this, since he has written on it extensively. Indeed, so did his predecessors.

Papal primacy and infallibility are only stumbling blocks if we allow them to be because we feel that we cannot redefine the role of the papacy in the modern world, despite the fact that the role of the pope has changed every century to meet the needs of the church. Primacy can mean one thing when reigning over the Western bishops as Patriarch of the West and another when advising the Eastern bishops as First-among-Equals. The extent to which the Eastern Churches would be subject to papal authority does not have to be the same as that to which the Western Churches are. The fact that the Eastern Churches might demand more liberty for the Western Churches can be seen in this light as nothing other than a concern on their part for their sister churches and their autonomy.

As for papal infallibility, we can pretend that it is a dogmatic issue if we want to do so. It certainly was declared dogmatically at Vatican I. Then again, the ability to dogmatically define articles of the faith infallibly is one that has always existed, but it belongs to the assembled bishops at an Ecumenical Council. To me it seems best to understand this as a power that was bestowed upon the papacy by a council, and one that in theory could be restored to the councils by the papacy. The two issues that have been dogmatically defined, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, have their parallels in the East, although they are not dogma there, but pious belief. I do not think they could cause any true problem, so long as the pope were to restore infallibility to its ancient place in the council rather than in a single human being.

 

[Mickey]

Accusing those you disagree with of being “Pessimists” does nothing to create a spirit of dialogue, or to further your cause.

Indeed.

Perhaps we are pessimistic, but so far nothing has been done to show us we shouldn’t be.

I call it, being a “realist.”