A possible step towards unity?

[ByzCathCantor]

I think in about five or six generations, after some big changes in Rome … maybe.

My dear brother Hesychios - I’m not in the best of health, but I do hold out some realistic hope that we’ll see substantial progress in my remaining lifetime. It seems the hierarchs participating in this North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation have chartered their efforts appropriately, recalling the wishes of our Lord and Savior (excerpt below from the joint statement referenced in my previous post):

“5. A Matter of Urgency. In light of the divine gifts that we share, then, it seems all the more urgent to us that our Churches grow closer together, in ways that the men and women of our time can see. The fact that our two Christian families have been separated in some central points of theology and Church discipline for almost a thousand years, and as a result no longer share in the sacramental communion that bound us together during the first millennium, is not only a violation of the will of God, as expressed in the prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper that his disciples “may be one” (John 17.21), but is also a serious impediment to effective Christian engagement in the world, and to the effective realization of our common mission to preach the Gospel.”

That sums it up pretty well! We are all responsible to see this through, as living disciples of Christ!

S’nami Boh!

 

[Hesychios]

Hello brother,

My dear brother Hesychios - I’m not in the best of health, but I do hold out some realistic hope that we’ll see substantial progress in my remaining lifetime.

I can appreciate how you feel, I really do!

However, as much as my post is a guess, I think it was a bit on the optimistic side. Let’s just hope and pray that I am wrong and you are right.

Pax et Bonum

 

[Mickey]

Hello brother, I can appreciate how you feel, I really do!

However, as much as my post is a guess, I think it was a bit on the optimistic side.

I agree…in fact I think it was overly optimistic.

Let’s just hope and pray that I am wrong and you are right.

Yes.

 

[MrPip]

Hello brother, I can appreciate how you feel, I really do!

However, as much as my post is a guess, I think it was a bit on the optimistic side. Let’s just hope and pray that I am wrong and you are right.

Pax et Bonum

Amen to that!

I hate to sound like a broken record, but…with God, all things are possible. Seems to me that our job, as always, is to conform our wills to His.

 

[Hesychios]

Oh boy, here we go again…

How does only Rome making big changes fit that bill?

Rome made the changes that pulled us apart. Now I realize that is asking a lot, thus I am giving it a few generations.

I do believe the process has already begun though, Rome has been clarifying it’s own position on a number of things over the last few decades, and the influence of the Eastern Catholic churches on some of the wording of the CCC of Pope John Paul II has probably been a positive step.

Eventually some big issues will have to be tackled, and I believe Rome will not want to give the appearance of reversing itself, so it’s going to be touch and go for a long time.

Blessings …

 

[steve_b]

Oh boy, here we go again…

How does only Rome making big changes fit that bill?

Re: steps towards unity, apologies by both sides is always a good start.

One recent step towards unity was made by JPII.

Pope apologizes for Constantinople 2 different occasions, accepted by Bartholomew & Christidoulous

1. 
   *]nytimes.com/2001/05/05/world/in-athens-pope-seeks-to-mend-an-ancient-rift.html 2001
   *]catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935 2004
   *]orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/MorelliForgiveness.php Orthodox article on forgiveness, Constantinople mentioned specifically
   
   it would have been appropriate at the same time for the Orthodox to apologize for what they inflicted on Latins in Constantinople 22 years prior. Who ever hears about THAT massacre of 50,000? Bishop Kallistos Ware agrees with making that apology, in the following link describing the event, but he can’t speak for anyone other than himself… crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html

 

[MrPip]

Rome made the changes that pulled us apart. Now I realize that is asking a lot, thus I am giving it a few generations.

I do believe the process has already begun though, Rome has been clarifying it’s own position on a number of things over the last few decades, and the influence of the Eastern Catholic churches on some of the wording of the CCC of Pope John Paul II has probably been a positive step.

Eventually some big issues will have to be tackled, and I believe Rome will not want to give the appearance of reversing itself, so it’s going to be touch and go for a long time.

Blessings …

And what later became known as the Orthodox Church was just an innocent bystander, victimized and abused by that horribly schismatic, heretical Rome. Right?

Yes, I am being sarcastic because you make it sound as though only Rome is responsible for the lack of union. In my experience, when a relationship works, it’s almost always because both parties want it to work and do what is necessary for that to happen, usually without casting blame and aspersions back and forth. And when a relationship doesn’t work, both parties always share the responsibility, not necessarily equally, but it is always shared.

Christ is Born!

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, I am being sarcastic because you make it sound as though only Rome is responsible for the lack of union.

It sounds that way for a reason.

You are, of course, free to demonstrate the mechanism by which the Orthodox broke relations with Rome. You are free to demonstrate how the Orthodox changed (theologically - spiritually - organizationally) to make themselves unacceptable as communion partners.

 

[MrPip]

It sounds that way for a reason.

You are, of course, free to demonstrate the mechanism by which the Orthodox broke relations with Rome. You are free to demonstrate how the Orthodox changed (theologically - spiritually - organizationally) to make themselves unacceptable as communion partners.

So it was a deliberately provocative statement? Interesting…

And your reply is a deft dodge, too, by the way . You have yet to address the issue of any changes the Orthodox Church might have to make in order to make reunion possible. Or, is it all down to Rome and the Catholic Church? You know, the old “it’s my (Orthodox) way or the highway” gambit? Because if that’s really the case, and if that represents the majority Orthodox viewpoint, how can we ever expect to get anywhere towards reunion? And why should we bother trying?

I am also free to not accept your challenge, because to do so would be playing into the whole “It’s your fault” “No it’s not, it’s your fault” blame game, which has been hashed and re-hashed, and re-re-hashed again and again. How much does that dead horse really need to be beaten, anyway?

 

[Hesychios]

So it was a deliberately provocative statement?

No, not deliberately provocative at all.

It was all I could say. 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.

 

[Nine_Two]

And your reply is a deft dodge, too, by the way . You have yet to address the issue of any changes the Orthodox Church might have to make in order to make reunion possible. Or, is it all down to Rome and the Catholic Church? You know, the old “it’s my (Orthodox) way or the highway” gambit? Because if that’s really the case, and if that represents the majority Orthodox viewpoint, how can we ever expect to get anywhere towards reunion? And why should we bother trying?

What changes might the Orthodox Church have to accept?

 

[Vico]

The issues over which Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., that I am aware of, have been:

879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)
903 antipope Christopher used the filioque
1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12)
1054 Latin Church replacement of artos with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX)

All of these things were not to be done (even in the Latin Church) according to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

So from a Latin Church perspective the eastern Church distanced itself by rejecting the actions of the Pope, from the eastern Church perspective the western Church distanced itself by the actions of the Pope.

So this is why the meaning of primacy is a most significant issue to resolve in the Church. My pastor asked Bishop Kallistos Ware what was keeping the Churches apart and his answer was the issue of the primacy.

 

[steve_b]

It sounds that way for a reason.

You are, of course, free to demonstrate the mechanism by which the Orthodox broke relations with Rome…

That one has been tossed around here for a long time. There were many items many quarrels when put together, paved the way for that accumulation of issues and quarrels, to take one more issue to cause the break of relations altogether. It’s not like there was perfect peace prior to the break, and then all of a sudden kapow things exploded on one issue…

As Vico mentioned, Bp Kalistos Ware probably put his finger on the real issue. Primacy. Until that gets resolved, then whether some recon the split to be 1000 years old, or by others 600 years old, either way, that’s alot of history to span.

As I mentioned previously, JPII initiated steps towards unity. As have popes previously. The question then is, What steps towards unity are being initiated by the Orthodox?
H:

You are free to demonstrate how the Orthodox changed (theologically - spiritually - organizationally) to make themselves unacceptable as communion partners

There are many threads already on the subjects of what caused disunity. This thread is about “possible steps towards unity”.

 

[Mickey]

As Vico mentioned, Bp Kalistos Ware probably put his finger on the real issue. Primacy.

To be more exact…“supremacy.”…and the 1870 doctrine of infallibility. There are many more issues…but those are the big ones.

 

[MrPip]

No, not deliberately provocative at all.

It was all I could say. 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”. We all know that “history” tends to support that which we want it to support. We can proof-text “history” just as we can proof-text Scripture to prove our point and to make us right and the other wrong. Finding a relatively unbiased, balanced account of history can sometimes be a taunting and very time consuming task in itself–not to mention costly.

But be that as it may… steve b reminds us pointedly and appropriately above, that this thread is supposed to be about possible steps towards unity, not a rehash of that which drove us apart and who’s to blame for what. He also asks, in light of the steps various popes have initiated to foster reunification, what steps the Orthodox Church(es) have initiated and are actively pursuing towards that end. I’d be interested in an answer to this, too.

As I said, if it’s “my (Orthodox) way or the highway”, we’ve really nothing to discuss and we’ll just have to content ourselves with being nice to each other.

 

[steve_b]

To be more exact…“supremacy.”

so no problem with primacy?
M:

…and the 1870 doctrine of infallibility. There are many more issues…but those are the big ones.

infallibility was invented in 1870 never before seen?

 

[Mickey]

so no problem with primacy?
infallibility was invented in 1870 never before seen?

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press]

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[Hesychios]

… this thread is supposed to be about possible steps towards unity, …

I agree

… As I said, if it’s “my (Orthodox) way or the highway”, we’ve really nothing to discuss and we’ll just have to content ourselves with being nice to each other.

You are jumping back and forth between finding steps toward unity, and dropping the idea.

I expressed the opinion that I thought it would take a few more generations to resolve, and I explained why I thought so.

 

[steve_b]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press]

Do you realize what that means…fully?
M:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

Mickey,

• Lets look at what then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, also said about the
• “patriarchal system” note para #3 in the link, no pontiff ever accepted this system
• “sister Churches” mentioned 26 times in the following link and how it’s been somewhat distorted in meaning. If you’re interested, be sure to read to the end of the page…[it keeps on going after the first signature to a follow-up]
• first among equals, [note para #'s 3,4,5,6 in the following link] note; no pontiff ever accepted this equalization.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfsisch.htm

So we’re back to the point you want to focus on. What was accepted in the first millenium?

btw, I don’t think your response, answered my post…at least with respect to the 1st millenium which you want to focus on

so no problem with primacy?

infallibility was invented in 1870 never before seen?

 

[MrPip]

You are jumping back and forth between finding steps toward unity, and dropping the idea.

Yes, I am. I would dearly love that we could find steps towards unity. On the other hand, and there’s always another hand , if the prevailing and majority Orthodox stance is “my way or the highway”, then it would seem that my desire is futile. I would be immensely heartened if you or some other Orthodox could/would convince me otherwise. Far too many of the Orthodox that I have encountered, especially but not limited at all to so-called “Netodox” take that stance, and discussion with them is, indeed, something akin to banging one’s head against a brick wall. Please show me, if you can, that this is really a minority viewpoint!!

In addition, if you’re willing, please show me what steps the Orthodox Church(es) are actively pursuing towards the goal of eventual unity with the Catholic Church, if that is their goal.

I expressed the opinion that I thought it would take a few more generations to resolve, and I explained why I thought so.

You may be correct in your opinion that reunification could take several more generations. I’ve encountered that opinion in others. Every once in a while, it just seems to me that some say this as a way of procrastinating. You know, “why do today what can wait 'til tomorrow”? Then they don’t have to take any kind of responsibility or action in the present to try to see that a viable and real reunification happens a little more quickly.

I wonder, for example, if you personally, or other Orthodox who may really desire reunification with the Catholic Church actively discuss this ongoiningly with or lobby their bishops and patriarchs about it?