My point exactly! We have to recognize that the only true form of ecumenicalism is conversion. It is the only natural conclusion you can draw if indeed the Church has the fullest form of the Christian revelation. To make any kind of concession is to challenge the authenticity of our claim to the fullest expression of Truth.**If Peter was head of the apostles (as is very clearly seen in both the gospels and in Acts), and Christ initiated Peter as the prime minister of his kingdom on earth (which He did), then who is being unreasonable by rejecting the office of Peter? **
Thats not an honest argument though. The Divine Liturgy is fully alive in the Eastern rites.In addition to giving up on theological grounds, they are concerned about their liturgy and traditions, that they fear they would lose.
peace
You should get a sense of what is happening with our non-Catholic Christian brothers by listening to what they have to say on these boards.My point exactly! We have to recognize that the only true form of ecumenicalism is conversion. It is the only natural conclusion you can draw if indeed the Church has the fullest form of the Christian revelation. To make any kind of concession is to challenge the authenticity of our claim to the fullest expression of Truth.
As Fr. Richard John Neuhaus said when he converted, the Lutheran Church was on the brink and then just settled into being ‘just another protestant denomination’. The ELCA is very liberal and probably getting more so, so there are lots of social issues separating them from The Church. The smaller, more conservative Lutheran groups, LCMS, etc. are still very anti-Catholic, with “the pope is the anti-Christ” type statements in their modern writings.The Lutherans had a real chance with the Commission examing theological issues, but I believe that the Lutherans really were primarily interested in getting the ‘anathemas’ of the Council of Trent removed. That aint going to happen, so the Joint Commission achieved a lot of talkings and meetings over the 30 year period, but I don’t see much else.
peace
I agree in part and respectfully disagree in part. It would be a good thing if the East and the West reunited. But if, from the Orthodox point of view, Catholicism does NOT share a valid priesthood, valid sacraments and apostolic succession, and that definitely is their point of view, then we are a very long way from reunification. We can’t even see the starting block from here.Personally, I think it’s more important for the earthly Church to seek wholeness within Itself through a path of eventual unification with its eastern half. We are, after all, the same Church and share a valid priesthood as well as valid sacraments, not to mention authentic apostolic succession and the Eucharist. Protestants are in another category all together, as they reject most of what I just typed. And I don’t see any headway in unifying with evangelicals. They reject most of the Church’s teachings.
I disagree, structural is do able if agreed. I am Orthodox. We have RomanPreiet convert all the time. One thing though you don’t have to get him to accept the Real Presence, the understanding of Grace, our understanding of salvation, MARY, Rosaries, Liturgy, Icons, Annointments, How about thhaving to teach him that Jesus is the Son of God.I agree in part and respectfully disagree in part. It would be a good thing if the East and the West reunited. But if, from the Orthodox point of view, Catholicism does NOT share a valid priesthood, valid sacraments and apostolic succession, and that definitely is their point of view, then we are a very long way from reunification. We can’t even see the starting block from here.
I think the Church needs to harvest apples under the apple tree, not try to move the oak tree to the orchard and try to make it grow apples. If you hand an evangelical a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (I enjoy doing that) he will not find much in it with which he can disagree. Structural things and sacraments, yes, because they have been taught to be anti-clerical. But most of them already believe much of what the Catholic Church teaches. I agree with the famed Catholic writer, Flannery O’Connor who said that most southern evangelicals would be greatly surprised to find that their beliefs have more in common with those of the Catholic Church than with classic Protestantism. As I see evangelicals convert in my parish, year after year, I tend to agree with her. If the Church in the U.S. dedicated to evangelism among the Evangelicals, half the resources it dedicates to political statements, weird church buildings and the proliferation of “ministries”, there would be a harvest of souls worth talking about and, strange to tell, most of it would be in the South, as O’Connor predicted would someday be the case.
**Orthodoxy has NEVER stipulated that the Church in the West does not have a valid priesthood, valid sacraments, or valid apostolic succession. That has never been a point of contention for them. And most evangelicals I attempted to talk to (after THEY brought it up) will NOT listen to any apologetics with regard to the Catholic Church. It’s like they close their ears with their hands and yell out LALALALALA.I agree in part and respectfully disagree in part. It would be a good thing if the East and the West reunited. But if, from the Orthodox point of view, Catholicism does NOT share a valid priesthood, valid sacraments and apostolic succession, and that definitely is their point of view, then we are a very long way from reunification. We can’t even see the starting block from here.
I think the Church needs to harvest apples under the apple tree, not try to move the oak tree to the orchard and try to make it grow apples. If you hand an evangelical a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (I enjoy doing that) he will not find much in it with which he can disagree. Structural things and sacraments, yes, because they have been taught to be anti-clerical. But most of them already believe much of what the Catholic Church teaches. I agree with the famed Catholic writer, Flannery O’Connor who said that most southern evangelicals would be greatly surprised to find that their beliefs have more in common with those of the Catholic Church than with classic Protestantism. As I see evangelicals convert in my parish, year after year, I tend to agree with her. If the Church in the U.S. dedicated to evangelism among the Evangelicals, half the resources it dedicates to political statements, weird church buildings and the proliferation of “ministries”, there would be a harvest of souls worth talking about and, strange to tell, most of it would be in the South, as O’Connor predicted would someday be the case.
The saying in Orthodoxy that I’ve frequently heard is that the Protestants have thrown out the baby with the bath water.I have a general impression that the Catholic Church seem to focus more on unity towards the Eastern Orthodox Church rather than the Protestant Christians.
The Joint Commision of Catholic-Orthodox Mission made a statement on recently concerning the talks in Ravenna, Itaty (Oct 8-14, 2007).
Any comment why this is so?
So does the Eastern Orthodox Church view Protestant theology is as erroneous.The saying in Orthodoxy that I’ve frequently heard is that the Protestants have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Their thousands and thousands of “churches” are slinters off of the original Protestant Church, namely the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve heard many times that the Roman Catholic Church is a Protestant Church.
If Rome reunites, then they will all eventually reunite, since they are all from Roman Church.
This is just what I’ve heard which may explain why as an answer to your question.
I think perhaps we’re talking about different Protestant groups. Some of the mainline church folk are very resistant to Catholicism, both as groups and as individuals. I propose no compromise with that. The ones with whom I have more experience are fundamentalists. They are not so very different from Catholics in many ways. Perhaps the most important similarity is that they really believe. They don’t just pay lip service to religion. On an organizational basis, yes, they are hostile to Catholicism, but one has to realize that the more fundamentalist the group is, the looser are the ties they have to a particular church. You should read the doctrinal statements of most of the Baptist groups. They contain almost nothing. Many don’t really have doctrines exactly, they just rely on the primacy of conscience. When that is the case, conscience can be informed. Also, since most fundamentalists actually believe in God and in the salvific mission of Jesus, and really and truly want to be close to Jesus, the Eucharist is the one thing that actually answers their deepest longings. It is a matter of catechesis, not doctrinal disputation.Only problem I see with the Roman Catholics they don’t know enough sometimes about Protestants and instead of just keeping queit they will jump into that, well II don’t really see where we are so different stuff. That makes me leery of uniting with Rome. They are toeasy on Protestant doctrine sometimes.
First of all, because the Orthodox have apostolic succession from the Catholic point of view, so reunion with them is both more feasible (at least in one sense) and more imperative. A state of disunion means that true particular churches exist outside the full communion of the Catholic Church (again, I’m reporting what I take to be the Catholic Church’s position, not necessarily my own). That’s not a good thing.I have a general impression that the Catholic Church seem to focus more on unity towards the Eastern Orthodox Church rather than the Protestant Christians.
The Joint Commision of Catholic-Orthodox Mission made a statement on recently concerning the talks in Ravenna, Itaty (Oct 8-14, 2007).
Any comment why this is so?
Far be it from me to dispute an Episcopanlian’s judgment concerning how Episcopalians might react to reunion of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and there is a logic to what you say. I’m not persuaded that would apply equally well to Fundamentalists, who don’t pay all that much attention to what their own churches hold, as organized bodies, let alone to any other.First of all, because the Orthodox have apostolic succession from the Catholic point of view, so reunion with them is both more feasible (at least in one sense) and more imperative. A state of disunion means that true particular churches exist outside the full communion of the Catholic Church (again, I’m reporting what I take to be the Catholic Church’s position, not necessarily my own). That’s not a good thing.
Furthermore, in many ways the East/West division lies behind the Protestant/Catholic division, and a reconciliation of the former will give a much more solid basis for the latter.
Edwin
Do Catholics have any interest in the reunion except 100% on their own terms? For example, there was a report in the newspaper that a previous Pope said he wanted to establish a common date for Easter. Well, if so, what is to prevent Catholicism from simply adopting the Orthodox method of calculating Easter and thereby establishing a common date for Easter. No, Catholicism more or less demands that the Orthodox change their method of calculating Easter and change their 2000 year old tradition and use the Catholic method. Is that not true?I am not at all convinced the Orthodox have any interest in it at all. It takes two willing partners for a reunion. .
I don’t think that, in the vast scheme of unification of both branches that the method of determining Easter is of any significance, except to worship at the same time, which is not a big deal, actually. There is nothing to stop the western church from adopting the orthodox method of calculating Easter.Do Catholics have any interest in the reunion except 100% on their own terms? For example, there was a report in the newspaper that a previous Pope said he wanted to establish a common date for Easter. Well, if so, what is to prevent Catholicism from simply adopting the Orthodox method of calculating Easter and thereby establishing a common date for Easter. No, Catholicism more or less demands that the Orthodox change their method of calculating Easter and change their 2000 year old tradition and use the Catholic method. Is that not true?
That is probably the reason why there is more focus on reunification with the Orthodox Churches.Personally, I think it’s more important for the earthly Church to seek wholeness within Itself through a path of eventual unification with its eastern half. We are, after all, the same Church and share a valid priesthood as well as valid sacraments, not to mention authentic apostolic succession and the Eucharist. Protestants are in another category all together, as they reject most of what I just typed. And I don’t see any headway in unifying with evangelicals. They reject most of the Church’s teachings.
The announcement was made by a previous Pope that he wanted a commond date for Easter. If what you say is true, why did he not adopt the Orthodox method for calculating the date of Easter? You say it is not a big deal. If it is not a big deal, why do Catholics continue to reject the Orthodox method to calculate the date of Easter?I don’t think that, in the vast scheme of unification of both branches that the method of determining Easter is of any significance, except to worship at the same time, which is not a big deal, actually. There is nothing to stop the western church from adopting the orthodox method of calculating Easter.
Personally, the date of Easter is not an issue for me. Whatever method or calendar that the Church chooses is fine to me.The announcement was made by a previous Pope that he wanted a commond date for Easter. If what you say is true, why did he not adopt the Orthodox method for calculating the date of Easter? You say it is not a big deal. If it is not a big deal, why do Catholics continue to reject the Orthodox method to calculate the date of Easter?