Agreed. Too often debates on reunion devolve into the venting of grievances over the crusades or the killing of Latins in Constantinople in the twelfth century, etc., when these historical events don’t really shed light on the theological differences between EO and RC.
Orthodox reject union with Rome at this time, because Rome demand submission and acceptance of the modern concept of papal authority, something that we cannot accept. If Rome were to go back to the primacy of honor as first among equals that it held before the schism, union could be achieved.
Actually, Rome offers intercommunion right now, thus without forcing the EO Patriarchs to accept Rome’s understanding of the Petrine primacy. Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive communion from Catholic priests; it’s the Eastern Orthodox bishops who restrain their faithful from receiving such communion, apparently on the notion that the RCC is not a legitimate Church.
I’m not taking issue with what you’re saying here, but can I remind everyone that it was not only the Orthodox who suffered oppression, Catholics also suffered at the hands of Communism, Islam, Nazis. . .etc.
Do you think, however, that such things as the sacking of Constantinople prevent reunion on the part of the Orthodox? It seems to be something that many Orthodox tend to bring up on these threads about reunion. And it’s really sad, and if I’m being honest, a little self-righteous, considering their side is not lily white.
No. I don’t think that events like the sacking of Constantinople prevent reunion. I believe that there are a few substantive doctrinal barriers. I also think that perhaps the greatest barrier is human arrogance, and that it is found in abundance on both sides.
I agree that human arrogance is a barrier, I just believe that history seems to play a role amongst the Orthodox with regard to reunion. I say this because I’ve been a participant on many Orthodox/Catholic threads, and it’s (sacking) almost always brought up. It was because of this that I took a greater interest in Church history.
That question doesn’t even make sense unless you assume that Orthodox go Romeward “by default”.
)The Orthodox bishops restrain their faithful from receiving Communion in other churches for the exact same reason the Catholic Church forbids you to receive at a Lutheran Mass.
If you believe that analogy holds true, you should be of the opinion that Rome is wrong in allowing the EO to receive communion in our churches. Is that your opinion?
Wait, do Orthodox have to follow what their bishops tell them? I thought following your bishop was just for Catholics?
It does seem very legalistic.Wait, do Orthodox have to follow what their bishops tell them? I thought following your bishop was just for Catholics?
While my post was on the topic of a Patriarchy which happened to be part of the pentarchy, my post had nothing to do with the Pentarchy itself.
No, I don’t think they’re wrong to extend the invitation, any more than a Protestant church is wrong to extend the same invitation to Catholics. Could a Catholic accept that invitation and still remain a Catholic in good standing? Why or why not?
I think it would be a pretty silly argument to say that the sack of a Greek city by Greek forces and their pagan allies started the Great Schism, but you are welcome to make it. Surely there have been sillier posts in this thread, and I could use a good laugh tonight.
On the notion that we do not share the same faith, actually. The role of the papacy is a big part of that.
I cannot understand this position at all.
You’re the one who brought it up in this thread. The sack of a city long ago does nothing to prevent reunion, although it certainly helped cement the break. It also leads to some bitter feelings - on both sides if I read your posts right,
This sums it up nicely. There are real issues, but arrogance stops us from doing anything about them.