Sir this is not a slap on the face on the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that the Eastern Church has a different opinion should not make you to feel this way. …
By the way you are incorrect by saying Rome knows a lot about Eastern thought. They do not. It is only in this century we are discovering each other. If we knew each other from the beginnings (I am referring to the Laity here) there would have been no problem.
First, a disclaimer. I am no expert on the schism or Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, I do not claim to be expert in any area of Catholicism or other religions. I am a practicing Catholic and know most of what I know about the Catholic Faith from being a long-term member. Some small amount of knowledge tends to seep in just from sitting in a pew. All my opinions are just that, my opinions. I don’t pretend to represent the Roman Church.
A few things puzzle me about what you say. Are you saying that leaders and theologians in the Eastern churches do not commit their thoughts, reasonings, doctrines, etc. to writing for all to avail themselves of them? I was not aware of such secrecy. Or are you saying that the leaders and theologians of the Roman Church are lazy and smug and have not read what the Eastern churches have had to say for all these hundreds of years? Don’t you think they would be interested in knowing what was taught so that they could at the very least refute it? Don’t you think they would read what the Eastern leaders, doctors and theologians had to say if only out of scholarly interest? Just because there has been limited personal interaction does not mean that there has not been acute understanding of the issues and the details and reasonings behind them.
I do not think the Roman Church will be moved by any ground swell of the laity, unless it is one of submission to the Holy See. We do not operate as a democracy. Many in the American Catholic Church, for instance, are interested in modernizing Catholicism. The Vatican has not been exactly thrilled about this. It has rejected liberal interpretations of Vatican II and has fostered a return to the written meaning of the Vatican II documents. Many American Catholics are not happy about this. They do not like the new literal translations included in the Novus Ordo, They do not like the promotion of the extraordinary form of the Mass. They feel the Church is old fashioned, not only in some of its rites, and in the continuing use of Latin prayers and hymns, but also in its teachings on abortion, contraception, women’s ordination, marriage, homosexuality, and even the real presence among some Catholics. Popes John Paul II and Benedict have done much to clarify the Church’s position in these and other areas. The tail does not way the dog in the Roman Church. Movements of the laity can be divisive. The unitive principle in the Roman Church is top down, not bottom up.
I am sure the Roman Church has much to learn from the Eastern churches. But I do not think the Roman church will be open to changing any teaching or doctrine in favor of a teaching or doctrine of the Eastern churches, nor should it. I can see amplification of an existing teaching of the Roman Church brought about by study of Eastern thought, but not any substantive change. Either the Roman Church is right in claiming infallibility in matters of faith and morals, or it is a house of cards, and no church has any such authority or power, and therefore, no church has any certain moral claim to direct the faithful in matters of faith and morals.
On doctrinal differences, read this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
You can see by this that the Roman Catholic position is that it’s doctrines are supported even by the oldest Fathers of the Eastern churches, and so it is not a matter of the Orthodox being latinized but in their returning to their oldest roots. If that is the movement of which you speak, then it has promise, but if it’s to get the Roman Church to learn from the Eastern churches and change its teachings to reflect this new understanding, no chance IMO. Because the unitive principle in the Catholic Church is top down, it will expect returning Eastern Orthodox to accept the full teaching and understanding of the Roman Church, although it would probably agree to rites similar to existing Eastern Catholic rites for returning Catholics.
