Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[frjohnmorris]

Agreed, but my point extended a little beyond that. Based on my personal experience, I’d say the anti-Catholic rhetoric among Orthodox surpasses the anti-Orthodox rhetoric among Catholics quite a bit. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Catholic communion has Churches which revere post-schism Saints and allows Orthodox to receive communion in Catholic liturgies. The reverse is not true. Given that situation, I am somewhat offended when Orthodox complain about Catholics not being sufficiently respectful. This is not meant as personal commentary on frjohnmorris, and if I overstated the case, I apologize, but this is how it appears to me.

I always try to be respectful in my comments on this discussion. If I have offended anyone, I ask your forgiveness. I do think that the discussion over St. Photius got a little rough, however. Since I am an historian, I always try to provide some historical prospective to the discussion.
The Orthodox position is that sharing Communion is the result of a real union, not a means towards a union. We cannot pretend that a union exists that does not exist. If we do not resolve our differences, we will not be really united. Not sharing Communion is a visible sign of the tragedy of our disunion and hopefully will stimulate us to work towards reunion.
Some Catholics and some Orthodox are not respectful towards each other. We both have undiplomatic people.
We usually commemorate the same Saints that the Melkite Eastern Catholics because we were united until 1724. There are so many Saints that it is not possible to commemorate them all. Therefore each local Church commemorates the major Saints of the ancient Church like Pope St. Gregory the Great, but mostly commemorate ancient martyrs and other Saints like St. Ambrose, Pope St. Leo and St. Augustine that are common to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox calendars. There are a few exceptions like St. Joseph of Damascus who was martyred by the Muslims in 1860 and St. Raphael who was the first Bishop over what eventually became the Antiochian Archdiocese back in the days when we were under the Russians. But we usually commemorate the same Saint as the Roman Catholics because there are enough pre-schism Saints to fill the calendar. We also celebrate the same major feast days as Roman Catholics.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

But Fr. John…couldn’t we Catholics argue the same point? To some extent, I feel like other Christians benefit from the fact that Catholicism draws the majority of the enemy’s fire while living under the blanket of our protection. Kinda like Canada enjoying the protection of the US military without having to spend a lot of their own money to keep themselves safe.

I would happily open such a discussion since modern scholarship largely exonerates the Church with regard to the Inquisition. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.

Cannot? Or will not? Tell me, are you a convert to Orthodoxy? Or is your currrent allegiance partially a function of inertia?

Obviously, other intelligent folks like yourself have examined the same evidence and come to the opposite conclusion, but I do appreciate your time and your contributions to these threads. They have been very enlightening.

I think that getting into a discussion of the Spanish Inquisition would be counter productive. I do agree that modern scholarship has shown that it was not as severe as it has been portrayed in the past.
I am happy to answer your question. I am a convert to Orthodoxy from the Episcopal Church. I was raised a Methodist, became an Episcopalian when I was 16 and converted to Orthodoxy when I was in my late 20s. Before that I earned a PhD in history and was a college professor. Ironically although my specialization was modern German history, I also had a field in Russian history that got me interested in Orthodoxy. However, when I joined the Orthodox Church, I joined an Antiochian Orthodox Church because it was the only Orthodox Church in Austin, Texas at that time. I graduated from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston and have been an Orthodox Priest for over 33 years. I am the first person to tell you that history is not truth. History is the opinion of historians based on the data they have filtered through their own personal biases. However, in any standard study of church history, there is always a chapter on the rise of the papacy. I think that even a Roman Catholic historian would agree that the modern papacy is the product of a long and complex development.

Fr. John Morris

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Hopefully one day our orthodox brothers and sisters can slowly come home. It would be beautiful.

It would be a wonderful thing if Old Rome were to proclaim the Orthodox Faith once again, and that we could resume Communion.

 

[Nine_Two]

… but we wouldn’t describe that as removing Luther from Catholic calendars. We would say that he was never there to begin with.

And I’d agree with that description. Just as I agree with it in regards to the Western Rite.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by chero23
Hopefully one day our orthodox brothers and sisters can slowly come home. It would be beautiful.

Ever since reading chero’s post, I’ve been wondering if an Orthodox poster would respond with something like that (or “Hopefully one day our Catholic brothers and sisters can slowly come home. It would be beautiful.”)

 

[Peter_J]

Years ago a relative of a member of my parish who had died attend the Divine Liturgy at my Church. Because she was an Episcopalian, I would not give her Holy Communion. A few months later she came back and told me that her Episcopalian Bishop had told her that I have no right to deny her Holy Communion. I pointed out that her Episcopal Bishop has no authority over my Orthodox parish.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Well said, Father. There’s nothing wrong with her having an opinion (or her bishop having one) but coming back to you and saying “My bishop said that you have no right to deny me Holy Communion” sounds a little weird to me. http://www.byzcath.org/forums/images/graemlins/default/eek.gif

P.S. It would be interesting to turn the tables by going to an Episcopal mass and telling the priest “My bishop said that you have no right to celebrate the Eucharist, since you’re Episcopalian.” (Not that I would actually do that. :getholy: )

 

[chero23]

It would be a wonderful thing if Old Rome were to proclaim the Orthodox Faith once again, and that we could resume Communion.

If you don’t mind me asking and being direct, what is it in specific that you as an orthodox would like to see? I know you said that “if old Rome were to proclaim the Orthodox faith once again”. What do you mean by that?

Some (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated

 

[bilop]

Ever since reading chero’s post, I’ve been wondering if an Orthodox poster would respond with something like that (or “Hopefully one day our Catholic brothers and sisters can slowly come home. It would be beautiful.”)

So, what’s the “grand bargain”?

I say we defer to you all on the Filioque, and the routine ordination of married men, and you defer to us on the Pope (with the guarantee he can change nothing about your traditional liturgy and practices), and divorce and remarriage.

We got a deal?

God Bless

 

[KnitNut]

So, what’s the “grand bargain”?

I say we defer to you all on the Filioque, and the routine ordination of married men, and you defer to us on the Pope (with the guarantee he can change nothing about your traditional liturgy and practices), and divorce and remarriage.

We got a deal?

God Bless

With all due respect, truth is not a “grand bargain”. How about Rome returns to proclaiming the Orthodox faith, and then She may intercommune with us. In the meantime, getting Her own liturgical house in order might be a good first baby step.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

If you don’t mind me asking and being direct, what is it in specific that you as an orthodox would like to see? I know you said that “if old Rome were to proclaim the Orthodox faith once again”. What do you mean by that?

Some (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated

It was a slightly tongue in cheek comment flipping around the post, as we could just as easily say the same to Latins.

I think that the Popes have taken baby steps in the right direction already. Renouncing the Papal Tiara and pushing for more collegiality. Obviously, given the nature of Latin Ecclesiology this is on the surface, but it is encouraging.

What I meant, is that Old Rome would have to look at the 1000 years of extra stuff that they have piled on top of the Apostolic Faith since the Schism. Universal Jurisdiction, Papal Infallibility, the Filoque…all of these things would have to be addressed before Communion could resume.

 

[malphono]

Universal Jurisdiction, Papal Infallibility, the Filoque…all of these things would have to be addressed before Communion could resume.

The first two are indeed major problems. Oh, without question Rome could resolve them without much difficulty, but I rather doubt that will be happening any time soon.

OTOH, the whole “filoque” debate is just that: a debate. It could be settled very easily, but that’s all I’ll say since (a) there have been myriad and sundry threads about that issue and (b) I refuse to involve myself in the whole issue.

 

[Peter_J]

The first two are indeed major problems. Oh, without question Rome could resolve them without much difficulty, but I rather doubt that will be happening any time soon.

To take a page out of Misplaced_Book’s book, “flipping around the post” we could likewise say that the *Orthodox *could resolve them without much difficulty by simply saying “We agree!”

 

[malphono]

To take a page out of Misplaced_Book’s book, “flipping around the post” we could likewise say that the *Orthodox *could resolve them without much difficulty by simply saying “We agree!”

Ah but then the First Millennium reality would be relegated to the dust bin, wouldn’t it?

 

[Peter_J]

If you don’t mind me asking and being direct, what is it in specific that you as an orthodox would like to see? I know you said that “if old Rome were to proclaim the Orthodox faith once again”. What do you mean by that?

Some (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated

So, what’s the “grand bargain”?

Well … how much time do you have?

Some excellent reading: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

(Or, more generally, vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ .)

 

[frjohnmorris]

Ever since reading chero’s post, I’ve been wondering if an Orthodox poster would respond with something like that (or “Hopefully one day our Catholic brothers and sisters can slowly come home. It would be beautiful.”)

No it would not be beautiful, it would be arrogant and disrespectful to our Catholic brothers and sisters just as I find the idea that we Orthodox need to come home insulting and disrespectful of our venerable Churches. I can express my deep desire that Orthodoxy and Catholicism will once again come together in a mutual affirmation of the Faith of the ancient and undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Unity on the basis of triumph of one of us over the other is not the answer. Mutual understanding is the answer. I spent several years as part of an Orthodox delegation arguing with the Lutherans over the filioque but have learned more about what it really means and the real differences from this discussion than I did during discussions with some of the best Lutheran theologians in the United States. Interestingly enough, two of them eventually left the Lutheran Church and became Catholic.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

With all due respect, truth is not a “grand bargain”. Originally Posted by bilop View Post
So, what’s the “grand bargain”?

I say we defer to you all on the Filioque, and the routine ordination of married men, and you defer to us on the Pope (with the guarantee he can change nothing about your traditional liturgy and practices), and divorce and remarriage.

We got a deal? How about Rome returns to proclaiming the Orthodox faith, and then She may intercommune with us. In the meantime, getting Her own liturgical house in order might be a good first baby step.

I do not think that is a very good bargain. I can accept the Pope has having a primacy of honor like the Ecumenical Patriarch presently has in the Orthodox Church, but believe that no man should be unaccountable to his fellow Bishops or the rest of the Church. How about turning the College of Cardinals into a real Holy Synod with authority over the Pope and the Pope recognizing the administrative independence of the autocephalous Churches, renouncing Vatican 1 or at least redefining its decisions to recognize the collegiality of the Bishops of the Church, Rome made a beginning at Vatican II towards that direction, and occupying the same sort of position now occupied by the Ecumenical Patriarch and recognizing or at that he like all other Bishops is subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The Orthodox would not interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarch of the West, but would not recognize his authority to interfere in our administrative affairs. Doctrinal differences would be settled like they were before the schism, by an Ecumenical Council.
As you know, we do not follow the same procedures as Roman Catholics on divorce and remarriage. Instead we deal with it through Confession and penance and the Bishop. When a person gets a divorce, they are placed under penance and cannot receive Holy Communion. They must be reinstated by the Bishop. That means that they have to discuss with their pastor why the marriage failed who sends a letter with his recommendation a copy of the divorce decree to the Metropolitan, who makes a decision to either extend the penance or reinstate the person to the Sacramental Life of the Church with permission to remarry. We believe that God forgives all sins, especially those that lead to the failure of a marriage and gives us another chance. People make mistakes and it is unloving to force them to live the rest of their lives in unhappiness because of a mistake that they made when they were in their 20s. Besides in this age of no fault divorce and all sorts of things that undermine the traditional concept of marriage as being for life, we have to exercise a little of what we call economy and have compassion on people by recognizing that God is loving and forgiving.
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[bilop]

With all due respect, truth is not a “grand bargain”. How about Rome returns to proclaiming the Orthodox faith, and then She may intercommune with us. In the meantime, getting Her own liturgical house in order might be a good first baby step.

I think that’s a very parochial view; that the Orthodox are “right” on everything, and the Catholics are “wrong” on everything. The schism is not simply Rome’s fault.

Both sides have contributed to the schism, and both sides need to adjust.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

I do not think that is a very good bargain. I can accept the Pope has having a primacy of honor like the Ecumenical Patriarch presently has in the Orthodox Church, but believe that no man should be unaccountable to his fellow Bishops or the rest of the Church. How about turning the College of Cardinals into a real Holy Synod with authority over the Pope and the Pope recognizing the administrative independence of the autocephalous Churches, renouncing Vatican 1 or at least redefining its decisions to recognize the collegiality of the Bishops of the Church, Rome made a beginning at Vatican II towards that direction, and occupying the same sort of position now occupied by the Ecumenical Patriarch and recognizing or at that he like all other Bishops is subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The Orthodox would not interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarch of the West, but would not recognize his authority to interfere in our administrative affairs. Doctrinal differences would be settled like they were before the schism, by an Ecumenical Council.
As you know, we do not follow the same procedures as Roman Catholics on divorce and remarriage. Instead we deal with it through Confession and penance and the Bishop. When a person gets a divorce, they are placed under penance and cannot receive Holy Communion. They must be reinstated by the Bishop. That means that they have to discuss with their pastor why the marriage failed who sends a letter with his recommendation a copy of the divorce decree to the Metropolitan, who makes a decision to either extend the penance or reinstate the person to the Sacramental Life of the Church with permission to remarry. We believe that God forgives all sins, especially those that lead to the failure of a marriage and gives us another chance. People make mistakes and it is unloving to force them to live the rest of their lives in unhappiness because of a mistake that they made when they were in their 20s. Besides in this age of no fault divorce and all sorts of things that undermine the traditional concept of marriage as being for life, we have to exercise a little of what we call economy and have compassion on people by recognizing that God is loving and forgiving.
Archpriest John W. Morris

I have no problem with the idea of some Ecclesiastical body having authority over the Pope. In fact, it’s necessary, in case a Pope were to teach heresy. If a Pope taught heresy, some collection of Bishops would be forced to depose him, so, it’s better to have that apparatus decided ahead of time.

But, just as there needs to be some body with the authority to stop the Pope from innovating, or veering into heresy, the Pope needs to be able to stop the autonomous churches from doing likewise. e.g. if a Pope tried to ordain a women, the Bishops would need to stop him. But, equally, if a sui juris Church tried to ordain a woman, the Pope needs the authority to stop that.

Your position on marriage makes little sense to me. Either marriage is permanent, or it’s not. The 3 marriage maximum (even in cases of death of the spouses) also makes little sense.

I’m all for being quite liberal in decrees of nullity, exactly because of our society’s warped views of marriage. The petitioner should get every benefit of the doubt. But, allowing priests and bishops to pick and choose which valid marriages to dissolve, makes little sense. Forgiveness is different than being allowed to continue sinning.

Do the Orthodox prohibit divorcees from communion even if they have not attempted remarriage?

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that getting into a discussion of the Spanish Inquisition would be counter productive. I do agree that modern scholarship has shown that it was not as severe as it has been portrayed in the past.

This is happily received. Tell your friends!

I am happy to answer your question. I am a convert to Orthodoxy from the Episcopal Church. I was raised a Methodist, became an Episcopalian when I was 16 and converted to Orthodoxy when I was in my late 20s.

I, too was raised in a Methodist home, and I converted to Catholicism when I was in college…more than 30 years ago now.

Before that I earned a PhD in history and was a college professor. Ironically although my specialization was modern German history, I also had a field in Russian history that got me interested in Orthodoxy. However, when I joined the Orthodox Church, I joined an Antiochian Orthodox Church because it was the only Orthodox Church in Austin, Texas at that time. I graduated from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston and have been an Orthodox Priest for over 33 years. I am the first person to tell you that history is not truth. History is the opinion of historians based on the data they have filtered through their own personal biases. However, in any standard study of church history, there is always a chapter on the rise of the papacy. I think that even a Roman Catholic historian would agree that the modern papacy is the product of a long and complex development.

Fr. John Morris

Fr. John-

This is precisely why I am not impressed by long arguments about Canons and Councils when better arguments are available. I watch the discussions concerning Canon 28 and Photius and so on, but it seems to me that the answers to Jesus’ intentions regarding the papacy can be summed up in three points from scripture:

• Peter alone was given the keys (cf. Is 20:22), and thus, he is the Royal Steward (a perpetual office) over the entire household of God (was there any part of Egypt where Joseph did not have authority?)
• Peter was told to strengthen his brothers - all of them, everywhere - and sometimes making someone stronger requires correcting or setting them back on the right path
• Peter was made the vicarious shepherd of Jesus’ flock…the whole flock and not just a few sheep.

Based on these and other “big picture” arguments, I do not understand how the universal jurisdiction of the papacy is missed by any but those who use “canons and councils” to avoid submission to Rome’s God-given authority.

I know you know the arguments I made and I know you know the EO responses to them. But do you know the mind of God concerning the matter?

That’s not an accusation…just an important question each of us has to answer for himself.

Peace.

 

[bilop]

Fr. John-

This is precisely why I am not impressed by long arguments about Canons and Councils when better arguments are available. I watch the discussions concerning Canon 28 and Photius and so on, but it seems to me that the answers to Jesus’ intentions regarding the papacy can be summed up in three points from scripture:

• Peter alone was given the keys (cf. Is 20:22), and thus, he is the Royal Steward (a perpetual office) over the entire household of God (was there any part of Egypt where Joseph did not have authority?)
• Peter was told to strengthen his brothers - all of them, everywhere - and sometimes making someone stronger requires correcting or setting them back on the right path
• Peter was made the vicarious shepherd of Jesus’ flock…the whole flock and not just a few sheep.

Based on these and other “big picture” arguments, I do not understand how the universal jurisdiction is missed by any but those who use “canons and councils” to avoid submission to Rome’s God-given authority.

Being a Latin Catholic, I tend to agree with you

But, I also accept the Orthodox position that there needs to be some check on the Pope, if he were to teach against dogma or doctrine, or try to overrule legitimate tradition.

e.g. I do not believe a Pope has the authority to order Easterner and Orientals to abandon their traditional liturgies and use a Latin liturgy, or to cease ordaining married men. Just like I don’t believe the Pope has the authority to suppress legitimate Traditional liturgies in the Latin Church. A Mass once valid is always valid.

The Pope’s supremacy really needs to be understood as limited to upholding the Faith as it has been taught always and everywhere by the orthodox (small o) bishops. His supremacy doesn’t apply to innovations.

God Bless