Christian Unity might be possible if Christians had any interest in achieving it but, unfortunately, most Christians don’t consider Christian Unity to

[SSTeacher]

Isn’t it the case that we Christians rather enjoy arguing with each other? Most Christians declare that they’re in favor of unity (and possibly like to point to the fact that they’ve read John 17 as proof that their declaration is true) but how much time in positive thought do Christians actually give to the challenge before us? Isn’t it the case that many of us prefer to say something like, “Finding the solution is up to our leaders,” so we can get on with the polemics?

I respectfully submit it’s highly probable that a sizeable number of us think of Christian Unity along the lines suggested by the following assertion:

Unity in Christendom will be achieved when all these other idiots drop their pride and accept what I believe to be true because what I believe to be true is the absolute truth without any mixture of error.

Just my opinion. I could be right.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Isn’t it the case that we Christians rather enjoy arguing with each other? Most Christians declare that they’re in favor of unity (and possibly like to point to the fact that they’ve read John 17 as proof that their declaration is true) but how much time in positive thought do Christians actually give to the challenge before us? Isn’t it the case that many of us prefer to say something like, “Finding the solution is up to our leaders,” so we can get on with the polemics?

I respectfully submit it’s highly probable that a sizeable number of us think of Christian Unity along the lines suggested by the following assertion:

Unity in Christendom will be achieved when all these other idiots drop their pride and accept what I believe to be true because what I believe to be true is the absolute truth without any mixture of error.

Just my opinion. I could be right.

Ecumenically,
Mick

I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that unity is not to be desired. I rather think that we get more right in the totality of our Christendom than we do individually. And I think that we have to sacrifice too much to unite. And in doing so we will lose some precious stuff. Nobody has got it entirely right, and probably nobody has got it entirely wrong. We should celebrate and embrace our differences, our agreements and get on with doing the work we were meant to do, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, heal the sick …you know, the important stuff. How we practice our love of God is probably the least of God’s concerns.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that unity is not to be desired.

I think you are correct, but perhaps if persecution of Christians in Western countries ever becomes real (which several CAF members believe is already happening) there will be more incentive for unity. As it is now, Christians find that what divides them is more important than what unites them.

 

[Tezza]

Hi, Mick.

It’s a good observation, IMO. Some people put religious debate on their list of favorite sports and would be sorely disappointed if all barriers to unity were removed. Of course, just looking at the Traditional forum, I think we’ll have plenty of debate to go around even within one Church.

I guess I’m not sure I understand what you mean be Christian unity, though. Do you mean that there would only be one Church? Or that we should all agree to disagree (which we kind of do) and never voice our opinions? We are unified by a belief in Jesus Christ which is oh so beautiful if not imperfect. Some of us join together on the battle lines of the pro-life movement, so I have seen unity in action.

If you accept the Catholic Church’s position that Jesus founded A Church with the deposit of faith and protection by the Holy Spirit then it doesn’t leave much wiggle room. If I believe the above statement (as I have come to believe and am grateful for) then, logically, wouldn’t I want everyone to be Catholic? Just like anyone who believes Jesus loves us and died for mankind would want everyone to be Christian?

I don’t think we can meet in the middle if that means compromising Truth. Of course, that does not give me an excuse to be uncharitable or unloving. Jesus said so:thumbsup:

Peace in Christ,
Teri

 

[dzheremi]

I would say that the first among those who might accept that assertion are also those who claim to be most fidelitous to their Church (a.k.a. “the true Church”) and its faith (“a.k.a. the true faith”) and the teachings thereof (a.k.a. “the true teachings of the true faith of the true Church”). Sometimes I think Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism is an exercise in who can talk the most about truth and the least about details. And the hard work is in the details. But I digress…

I would say that you are right, unfortunately, about the tendency among Christians, but wrong about the impulse. I’ve sat through many stupid “Traitors to Orthodoxy” type polemics (mainly on Youtube, slava Bogu, so I know that I don’t have to take them as seriously as I would the statements of a metropolitan or a patriarch), and their Catholic equivalent (generally so far down several tributaries of the river “Denial” that I actually find them more nauseating than their Orthodox counterparts). I can’t for the life of me imagine that such polemics exist because people have passed of the responsibility of fostering unity to leaders alone. One thing I have noticed about the most hardline anti-ecumenical persons of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is their willingness to turn on their leaders for having the audicity to propose dialogue and/or eventual unity with “the other guy” (no matter how hypothetical that unity may be). And this is one point on which everyone is right, because neither of our Churches permit communion with heretics.

There is something deeply disturbing about the idea, found in both Catholic and Orthodox communities (and maybe Protestants, too, though I don’t know enough about the different churches to generalize), that unity essentially comes from the destruction of one or the other Church. All Catholics recognize Orthodoxy as the one and only true faith, abandon Rome (or Bkerke, or wherever you look to in your particular Church), and worship and believe as the Orthodox do. Or, conversely, all Orthodox recognize the Pope as the supreme authority of the universal Church, adopt Latin doctrines, and worship as those in union with Rome do. I should like to see some other way of viewing things, wherein the dignity of the individual and his tradition is given primacy over who gets to control who. But that is a dream that is not realized today, nor has it been realized at any point in the past 1500 years or so.

I wonder what the people of the Assyrian Church of the East, long broken from communion with the other Churches, many centuries before the Great Schism, think about all this? It’s strange to see world Christianity to some degree at each others throats. But I guess that’s the world of the arrogant, no matter what Church they belong to. I am aware of the Orthodox teaching that it is only possible to say with certainty where salvation is, not where it is not. Honestly, I find this much preferable to “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, not because I don’t believe in that (and the Orthodox, too, hold St. Cyprian to have been teaching correct doctrine, do they not?), but because there is some controversy surrounding it due to various interpretations of different camps of Catholics (“traditionalists” vs. other people, who are, of course, wrong…hahaha).

Me, I just want to worship God in the most reverent way possible. I imagine that I would still have that same goal in mind in my day to day life if I were Orthodox. That’s a good starting point to mutual comprehension, if not unity.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi, Mick.

It’s a good observation, IMO. Some people put religious debate on their list of favorite sports and would be sorely disappointed if all barriers to unity were removed. Of course, just looking at the Traditional forum, I think we’ll have plenty of debate to go around even within one Church.

Hi Teri. You’re right. There has always been debate in the Church and I suppose there always will be.

I guess I’m not sure I understand what you mean be Christian unity, though. Do you mean that there would only be one Church? Or that we should all agree to disagree (which we kind of do) and never voice our opinions? We are unified by a belief in Jesus Christ which is oh so beautiful if not imperfect. Some of us join together on the battle lines of the pro-life movement, so I have seen unity in action.

What I mean by Christian Unity i.e. what I understand by such a term is not necessarily the understanding of the person next to me. So it’s clear that the term Christian Unity needs to be defined and agreed upon. Your questions are good ones. They’re useful, too, because they reveal how little consideration we ordinary Christians put into the concept of being one. We have to query the parameters before we can even begin a discussion.

If you accept the Catholic Church’s position that Jesus founded A Church with the deposit of faith and protection by the Holy Spirit then it doesn’t leave much wiggle room.

Agreed – but respectful and productive dialogue is possible on a one–to–one basis once each person understands his or her presuppositions and is able to articulate them speedily and without discomfort or difficulty. If two people can do that then they are both open to guidance by the Holy Spirit. But if they just bait each other and insult each other and sneer at each other, they render the Holy Spirit powerless. That’s really the point I had in mind when I wrote my Opening Post.

If I believe the above statement (as I have come to believe and am grateful for) then, logically, wouldn’t I want everyone to be Catholic? Just like anyone who believes Jesus loves us and died for mankind would want everyone to be Christian?

Indeed. The obstacle to unity becomes apparent when a Catholic who believes what you have stated above takes it upon himself or herself to condemn a non–Catholic on the basis of the non–Catholic’s beliefs.

I don’t think we can meet in the middle if that means compromising Truth. Of course, that does not give me an excuse to be uncharitable or unloving. Jesus said so:thumbsup:

Peace in Christ,
Teri

No, we must not compromise truth. To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” But he also prayed to the Father that we would be brought to complete unity. So we should at least think about it. I’m suggesting no more than that.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[cheese_sdc]

Unity in Christendom will be achieved when all these other idiots drop their pride and accept what I believe to be true because what I believe to be true is the absolute truth without any mixture of error.

So what are you willing to give up? Or are you like the “other idiots” who has a list of non-negotiable as well?

 

[SSTeacher]

So what are you willing to give up?

Cheese.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

I would say that the first among those who might accept that assertion are also those who claim to be most fidelitous to their Church (a.k.a. “the true Church”) and its faith (“a.k.a. the true faith”) and the teachings thereof (a.k.a. “the true teachings of the true faith of the true Church”). Sometimes I think Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism is an exercise in who can talk the most about truth and the least about details. And the hard work is in the details. But I digress…

I would say that you are right, unfortunately, about the tendency among Christians, but wrong about the impulse. I’ve sat through many stupid “Traitors to Orthodoxy” type polemics (mainly on Youtube, slava Bogu, so I know that I don’t have to take them as seriously as I would the statements of a metropolitan or a patriarch), and their Catholic equivalent (generally so far down several tributaries of the river “Denial” that I actually find them more nauseating than their Orthodox counterparts). I can’t for the life of me imagine that such polemics exist because people have passed of the responsibility of fostering unity to leaders alone. One thing I have noticed about the most hardline anti-ecumenical persons of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is their willingness to turn on their leaders for having the audicity to propose dialogue and/or eventual unity with “the other guy” (no matter how hypothetical that unity may be). And this is one point on which everyone is right, because neither of our Churches permit communion with heretics.

There is something deeply disturbing about the idea, found in both Catholic and Orthodox communities (and maybe Protestants, too, though I don’t know enough about the different churches to generalize), that unity essentially comes from the destruction of one or the other Church. All Catholics recognize Orthodoxy as the one and only true faith, abandon Rome (or Bkerke, or wherever you look to in your particular Church), and worship and believe as the Orthodox do. Or, conversely, all Orthodox recognize the Pope as the supreme authority of the universal Church, adopt Latin doctrines, and worship as those in union with Rome do. I should like to see some other way of viewing things, wherein the dignity of the individual and his tradition is given primacy over who gets to control who. But that is a dream that is not realized today, nor has it been realized at any point in the past 1500 years or so.

I wonder what the people of the Assyrian Church of the East, long broken from communion with the other Churches, many centuries before the Great Schism, think about all this? It’s strange to see world Christianity to some degree at each others throats. But I guess that’s the world of the arrogant, no matter what Church they belong to. I am aware of the Orthodox teaching that it is only possible to say with certainty where salvation is, not where it is not. Honestly, I find this much preferable to “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, not because I don’t believe in that (and the Orthodox, too, hold St. Cyprian to have been teaching correct doctrine, do they not?), but because there is some controversy surrounding it due to various interpretations of different camps of Catholics (“traditionalists” vs. other people, who are, of course, wrong…hahaha).

Me, I just want to worship God in the most reverent way possible. I imagine that I would still have that same goal in mind in my day to day life if I were Orthodox. That’s a good starting point to mutual comprehension, if not unity.

Hi dzheremi,

A very thoughtful and perceptive post. Your concluding thought, that you just want to worship in the most reverent way possible is one with which I wholeheartedly concur. It was the beauty of the Divine Liturgy and Great Vespers that drew me to Orthodoxy.

I notice that you’re unsettled just now and I know that feeling very well so I shall keep you in my morning and evening prayers.

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[cheese_sdc]

Cheese.

Cordially,
Mick

Haha.

Do you believe that you’ve found Truth? And that Truth is only found in the place you found it? Your profile states that you are converting - does that mean you’ve found a more “Truthful” place than your former affiliation?

Just curious.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you are correct, but perhaps if persecution of Christians in Western countries ever becomes real (which several CAF members believe is already happening) there will be more incentive for unity. As it is now, Christians find that what divides them is more important than what unites them.

Dale, I think that all the major faiths, especially Islam, Christianity and Judaism are facing a crisis of increasing minorities of radical extremism within their respective traditions. If we don’t get ahold of this, it may result in what you say some CAF people claim will happen. I hope deeply so that that doesn’t happen, for I see that as the real end. We will destroy each other.

As you say, now, what divides us is so great that I see no solution. I certainly didn’t come to the idea on my own that unity might not be the goal. It was my spiritual director who posited it to me when I was bemoaning the horrid state of our theological disbutes. And upon thinking about it, I came to think that perhaps God prefers it this way.

I have more questions on most things than answers. lol…

 

[Pug]

I respectfully submit it’s highly probable that a sizeable number of us think of Christian Unity along the lines suggested by the following assertion:

Unity in Christendom will be achieved when all these other idiots drop their pride and accept what I believe to be true because what I believe to be true is the absolute truth without any mixture of error.

Just my opinion. I could be right.

Yes, you could.

I don’t know what stops unity. I have observed in myself a general lack of knowledge about my fellow Christians (and even more so about Muslims, Jews, etc.) Perhaps ignorance alone can serve as an impediment. Of course, it could be foolish to figure that others might tend to such ignorance as mine, but if they do, then I do think it could lead to each group sort of staying in it’s own boundaries.

Such ignorance is not so easily remedied, again only with reference to my own experience. Acceptance or tolerance of some sort is easier than understanding. I can be told various things that an X believes, but that does not mean I can readily interpret it as they would, putting it through a structure of understanding and experience as they would. I think being able to do this takes a remarkable amount of time, lovingly invested, with both parties participating.

Also, I must add that if someone spent the time to understand my Catholicism, for example, would that really prove to be an understanding of Catholics, or just my Catholicism? I think results in this matter would vary. I would strongly recommend that someone to spend time with several Catholics. What does this observation suggest about Christian unity being achieved by one Catholic and one Orthodox (as an example) talking with each other? Ugh, I don’t know, but maybe there is a benefit in having well-formed individuals (several) from each of the two groups interact in the process, at least after initial work is done. I say well-formed not to mean old or been that for a long time, but to mean someone who can readily elucidate the principles and bases of the religion. Someone who could then translate the two bases for other people to understand, people who weren’t at the dialogue.

Well Mick, this is long enough, so there are some thoughts.

 

[jam070406]

The Catholic Church believes the Office of the Papacy to be a Divinely revealed source of Unity. To ask the Church to cast off the Papacy or not hold to all Catholic Teachings would be asking it to go against the will of God to appease man’s idea of unity. I’m not saying this to condemn non-Catholics nor to be arrogant. This is what the Church itself teaches. So it comes to down to whether believers are willing to believe and accept it. Maybe Catholics poorly articulate this to non-Catholics which leads to fighting. I dunno. but as one poster said, if you can come to the conclusion that it’s actually a great gift, why wouldn’t you want to share with others that gift?
Some are willing to believe and some are not?

 

[Rolltide]

I wonder what the people of the Assyrian Church of the East, long broken from communion with the other Churches, many centuries before the Great Schism, think about all this?

Part of the Assyrian Church of the East came back into full communion with the Catholic Church last year (an entire diocese and all of its members, including the bishop). The other part is in serious negotiations with the Catholic Church, and the likelihood of a complete reunification are relatively good.

Link to the announcement of the reunification:
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/05/3000-assyrians-received-into-catholic.html

 

[SSTeacher]

Do you believe that you’ve found Truth? And that Truth is only found in the place you found it? Your profile states that you are converting - does that mean you’ve found a more “Truthful” place than your former affiliation?

Just curious.

Yes, I do believe that I’ve come upon the fullness of truth in Orthodoxy and that I would have “missed out” had I remained an Evangelical. I still have friends who are Evangelicals, of course, and I cast no aspersions upon them. An Orthodox notion that particularly attracted me is the idea that “we know for sure where the Holy Spirit is but we can’t say for certain where He isn’t.”

In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, the British atheist who converted to Protestant Christianity, shines some light on this question of judging the spiritual condition and eternal destiny of others. He writes:

Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

I think the idea Lewis posits here is helpful.

Suppose, for example, a child dies in infancy and never has a chance to hear about the real Jesus. Will that child inherit eternal life? Well, suggests Lewis, we don’t know. God hasn’t told us what His arrangements for that child are so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

Suppose a person is born with a mental defect that prohibits him or her from understanding anything about the real Jesus. Will that adult inherit eternal life? Again, suggests Lewis, we don’t know so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

Suppose a person is born into a religion other than Christianity and during childhood that person imbibes and believes so many anti–Christian tenets that as an adult he or she becomes quite incapable of understanding about the real Jesus? Will that adult inherit eternal life? Again suggests Lewis, we don’t know so we can safely leave the judgment to God.

And suppose a child is brought up in a Christian home and taught all the relevant doctrines but turns away from those doctrines because of the lack of love demonstrated by religious people purporting to be Christians and so never has a chance to hear about the real Jesus? Who is responsible for that adult’s condition? And will that adult inherit eternal life? Yet again, suggests Lewis we don’t know so let’s leave the judgment to God.

In fact, most people might agree that to leave all the judgments to God seems like a very good idea indeed. Lewis concludes his thought with these words:

But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ’s body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man’s fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.

I think that’s well said. So, for anybody who has a spiritual yearning, my counsel would be to check out Christendom – despite the fact that it is severely fragmented.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[mark_a]

Isn’t it the case that we Christians rather enjoy arguing with each other? Most Christians declare that they’re in favor of unity (and possibly like to point to the fact that they’ve read John 17 as proof that their declaration is true) but how much time in positive thought do Christians actually give to the challenge before us? Isn’t it the case that many of us prefer to say something like, “Finding the solution is up to our leaders,” so we can get on with the polemics?

I respectfully submit it’s highly probable that a sizeable number of us think of Christian Unity along the lines suggested by the following assertion:

Unity in Christendom will be achieved when all these other idiots drop their pride and accept what I believe to be true because what I believe to be true is the absolute truth without any mixture of error.

Just my opinion. I could be right.

Ecumenically,
Mick

You are right. We won’t unite until the great tribulation. Not to worry. It’s coming sooner or later. Probably sooner.

 

[SSTeacher]

Yes, you could.

I don’t know what stops unity. I have observed in myself a general lack of knowledge about my fellow Christians (and even more so about Muslims, Jews, etc.) Perhaps ignorance alone can serve as an impediment. Of course, it could be foolish to figure that others might tend to such ignorance as mine, but if they do, then I do think it could lead to each group sort of staying in it’s own boundaries.

Such ignorance is not so easily remedied, again only with reference to my own experience. Acceptance or tolerance of some sort is easier than understanding. I can be told various things that an X believes, but that does not mean I can readily interpret it as they would, putting it through a structure of understanding and experience as they would. I think being able to do this takes a remarkable amount of time, lovingly invested, with both parties participating.

Also, I must add that if someone spent the time to understand my Catholicism, for example, would that really prove to be an understanding of Catholics, or just my Catholicism? I think results in this matter would vary. I would strongly recommend that someone to spend time with several Catholics. What does this observation suggest about Christian unity being achieved by one Catholic and one Orthodox (as an example) talking with each other? Ugh, I don’t know, but maybe there is a benefit in having well-formed individuals (several) from each of the two groups interact in the process, at least after initial work is done. I say well-formed not to mean old or been that for a long time, but to mean someone who can readily elucidate the principles and bases of the religion. Someone who could then translate the two bases for other people to understand, people who weren’t at the dialogue.

Well Mick, this is long enough, so there are some thoughts.

Pug,

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[ferdie]

Part of the Assyrian Church of the East came back into full communion with the Catholic Church last year (an entire diocese and all of its members, including the bishop). The other part is in serious negotiations with the Catholic Church, and the likelihood of a complete reunification are relatively good.

Link to the announcement of the reunification:
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/05/3000-assyrians-received-into-catholic.html

The troubles of this world will lead them to seek unity and draw them back to the Church. It will take time to achieve unity, but it is relatively looking good!

 

[SSTeacher]

You are right. We won’t unite until the great tribulation. Not to worry. It’s coming sooner or later. Probably sooner.

Thanks, mark. Do you have any thoughts about the process itself? Do you, for example, think that Catholics ought to lead from the front and try to unite with the Orthodox or do you think it’s up to “Protestants” to unite amongst themselves and then send a delegation to Rome…

Any ideas about how unity might be brought about?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[cheese_sdc]

Yes, I do believe that I’ve come upon the fullness of truth in Orthodoxy and that I would have “missed out” had I remained an Evangelical. I still have friends who are Evangelicals, of course, and I cast no aspersions upon them. An Orthodox notion that particularly attracted me is the idea that “we know for sure where the Holy Spirit is but we can’t say for certain where He isn’t.”

That last bit is a fine ecumenical sentiment. But surely you must have considered you question objectively. Namely, that other people would be looking at you and saying that the Eastern Orthodox are an impediment to unity because, to them, you are one of “these other idiots who won’t drop their pride and accept what I believe to be true because what I believe to be true is the absolute truth without any mixture of error”