Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[piltdown_man]

I understood your point the first time that you mentioned it very well, but I think you misunderstood mine. In my post I was gently trying to advise you that, perhaps, it may be a little more constructive if you would state your point with a little more tact and sensitivity to others and their opinions. I hate to see courtesy abandoned, even when someone is trying to “open up strong”. Please forgive me for trying to see past the beam in my own eye. May God bless you as well.

 

[ddarko]

I understood your point the first time that you mentioned it very well, but I think you misunderstood mine. In my post I was gently trying to advise you that, perhaps, it may be a little more constructive if you would state your point with a little more tact and sensitivity to others and their opinions. I hate to see courtesy abandoned, even when someone is trying to “open up strong”. Please forgive me for trying to see past the beam in my own eye. May God bless you as well.

No worries, I see your point now

God Bless

 

[Triciacat]

In the Divine Litugy of St. John Chrysostom, Orthodox Christians pray “for the welfare of the holy churches of God and for the union of all,” and we ask the Lord to “fulfill the petitions of we Thy servants as may be expedient for us; granting us in this world the knowledge of Thy truth…” In The Lord’s Prayer, we all pray, “Thy will be done.” We must believe that God will acheive His will, in His time, and in His way, even if that is in eternity.

Is there a similar petition in the Catholic mass?

 

[dcointin]

If I might be so bold as to speak for him, I don’t believe that Dr. Roman was saying that the Catholic Church should compromise on dogma, he was saying that there are perhaps no dogmatic differences on which to compromise. From the study that I have done, the only significant dogmatic difference is the understanding of the primacy of the Pope. The other differences that are usually cited are misunderstandings based on different languages and theological traditions. One example of this is the “filioque” clause that was inserted into the Nicene Creed by the west. For a long time I believed this was a significant dogmatic difference, and indeed Orthodox often argue that it is, but after studying the issue and reading what Catholics really believe about it (particularly in a treatise written by Pope John Paul II), I realized that I misinterpreted their understanding, and that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines are mutually compatible. I believe this is also the case with other supposed differences such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Created Grace, and other teachings. You have to realize that a difference in “emphasis and expression” as Fr. Thomas J. Loya says, is not necessarily a difference in dogma. Regarding the Pope, Dr. Roman’s point is that since we were united as one Church for over 1000 years, there is reason to be hopeful that we can reach an agreement on this dogma once again as well. Most Catholics who have studied the issue will admit that the power of the Papacy has increased over time, particularly after the schism, and that it could be reassessed in a future Catholic/Orthodox council. Most Orthodox likewise will admit that the Pope was the principal bishop of the Church and enjoyed a primacy, though they debate what power this primacy entailed. Both will admit that the Church is infallible, and that this infallibility is expressed in ecumenical councils, with Catholics also extending the exercise of infallibility to the Pope when he speaks as head of the Church. The difference then is not as great as it might first appear, and I agree with Dr. Roman that there is hope for reconciliation. I would also like to caution against the term “true” church when used to compare the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church has stated that the Orthodox Church is a true church, with valid orders and sacraments, and is a “sister” church, and the “second lung” of the Church. If we follow the logic of only the Catholic Church being “true” Church, then does that make the Orthodox Church “false”, fake, counterfeit, not what the Catholic Church has described her as? This term, while you might believe it to be correct, is however not helpful. You might think for example that someone’s haircut is silly, but you need not tell them that either. Both of us must abandon the triumphalist mentality that only exaserbates the schism and does nothing to heal it.

 

[stephraim]

If I might be so bold as to speak for him, I don’t believe that Dr. Roman was saying that the Catholic Church should compromise on dogma, he was saying that there are perhaps no dogmatic differences on which to compromise. From the study that I have done, the only significant dogmatic difference is the understanding of the primacy of the Pope. The other differences that are usually cited are misunderstandings based on different languages and theological traditions. One example of this is the “filioque” clause that was inserted into the Nicene Creed by the west. For a long time I believed this was a significant dogmatic difference, and indeed Orthodox often argue that it is, but after studying the issue and reading what Catholics really believe about it (particularly in a treatise written by Pope John Paul II), I realized that I misinterpreted their understanding, and that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines are mutually compatible. I believe this is also the case with other supposed differences such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Created Grace, and other teachings. You have to realize that a difference in “emphasis and expression” as Fr. Thomas J. Loya says, is not necessarily a difference in dogma. Regarding the Pope, Dr. Roman’s point is that since we were united as one Church for over 1000 years, there is reason to be hopeful that we can reach an agreement on this dogma once again as well. Most Catholics who have studied the issue will admit that the power of the Papacy has increased over time, particularly after the schism, and that it could be reassessed in a future Catholic/Orthodox council. Most Orthodox likewise will admit that the Pope was the principal bishop of the Church and enjoyed a primacy, though they debate what power this primacy entailed. Both will admit that the Church is infallible, and that this infallibility is expressed in ecumenical councils, with Catholics also extending the exercise of infallibility to the Pope when he speaks as head of the Church. The difference then is not as great as it might first appear, and I agree with Dr. Roman that there is hope for reconciliation. I would also like to caution against the term “true” church when used to compare the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church has stated that the Orthodox Church is a true church, with valid orders and sacraments, and is a “sister” church, and the “second lung” of the Church. If we follow the logic of only the Catholic Church being “true” Church, then does that make the Orthodox Church “false”, fake, counterfeit, not what the Catholic Church has described her as? This term, while you might believe it to be correct, is however not helpful. You might think for example that someone’s haircut is silly, but you need not tell them that either. Both of us must abandon the triumphalist mentality that only exaserbates the schism and does nothing to heal it.

Very eloquently put. Very precise, too! I think the best reconciliation on the issue of primacy is what Marduk calls “the High Petrine” view. As a Roman Rite Catholic who’s studied patristics and history, I reject the “absolute Petrine” view and the “Low Petrine” view, and I agree 100% with your summation. May we all be one.

 

[Mike_Barberena]

Our brothers of the Orthodox Church are closer to Catholic Doctrines than any other group. Next are the Anglicans. Pope Paul VI on his visit to the Holy Land and the Leader of the Orthodox meet outside the Holy Temple, The Pope embraced his brother and both hugged and called each other brother and Pope Paul VI stated that Jesus Christ was proud for the working towards Unity. The next step is communion with the Vatican.

Thanks and remain blessed

 

[ddarko]

If I might be so bold as to speak for him, I don’t believe that Dr. Roman was saying that the Catholic Church should compromise on dogma, he was saying that there are perhaps no dogmatic differences on which to compromise. From the study that I have done, the only significant dogmatic difference is the understanding of the primacy of the Pope. The other differences that are usually cited are misunderstandings based on different languages and theological traditions. One example of this is the “filioque” clause that was inserted into the Nicene Creed by the west. For a long time I believed this was a significant dogmatic difference, and indeed Orthodox often argue that it is, but after studying the issue and reading what Catholics really believe about it (particularly in a treatise written by Pope John Paul II), I realized that I misinterpreted their understanding, and that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines are mutually compatible. I believe this is also the case with other supposed differences such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Created Grace, and other teachings. You have to realize that a difference in “emphasis and expression” as Fr. Thomas J. Loya says, is not necessarily a difference in dogma. Regarding the Pope, Dr. Roman’s point is that since we were united as one Church for over 1000 years, there is reason to be hopeful that we can reach an agreement on this dogma once again as well. Most Catholics who have studied the issue will admit that the power of the Papacy has increased over time, particularly after the schism, and that it could be reassessed in a future Catholic/Orthodox council. Most Orthodox likewise will admit that the Pope was the principal bishop of the Church and enjoyed a primacy, though they debate what power this primacy entailed. Both will admit that the Church is infallible, and that this infallibility is expressed in ecumenical councils, with Catholics also extending the exercise of infallibility to the Pope when he speaks as head of the Church. The difference then is not as great as it might first appear, and I agree with Dr. Roman that there is hope for reconciliation. I would also like to caution against the term “true” church when used to compare the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church has stated that the Orthodox Church is a true church, with valid orders and sacraments, and is a “sister” church, and the “second lung” of the Church. If we follow the logic of only the Catholic Church being “true” Church, then does that make the Orthodox Church “false”, fake, counterfeit, not what the Catholic Church has described her as? This term, while you might believe it to be correct, is however not helpful. You might think for example that someone’s haircut is silly, but you need not tell them that either. Both of us must abandon the triumphalist mentality that only exaserbates the schism and does nothing to heal it.

I appreciate you speaking on behalf of Roman, BUT, what about other differences on marriage and birth control? Thats not a theological misunderstanding.

I think the Orthodox position on those matters is therefore false, incorrect, counterfeit, immoral or whichever term you want to use to describe it.

Similarly, when you say what is the “true” church, my answer to you is that it is the only church that is guided by the holy spirit free from error.

Using your basis for “True”, I would also have difficulty on how I would categorize Islam or Judaism. They are after-all not completely false. They do have elements of truth in them. To me, Orthodox is just another incomplete religion which happens to be much closer to the truth than others BUT incomplete just as the others.

I also do not think that the views on marriage and birth control can simply be regarded as theological misunderstandings. These are things people practice and encounter daily. Either they are morally wrong for everybody or ok for everyone.

While I appreciate your view of overlooking differences for greater union, I am of the position that it is incorrect. Just as the Catholic church would not compromise with Islam for a greater union, neither should it with the Orthodox church. If the Orthodox just want to be a part of the Roman Catholic in the same way some of the Anglicans are doing, that’s fine. But it’s really not a union and is only a stepping stone at best.

That is why I believe that whether you are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Hindu, what you need to do is simple. Reflect, reason and see which church makes sense and whether you picking that church as TRUE is logically consistent with what you know. If it is, convert to that faith. Simple as that. Don’t rely on leaders to tell you what to do. One doesn’t pick the religion because the patriarch said so or the pope said so. The choice of religion comes BEFORE you choose to adhere to the leader of the church. So while you must adhere to the Pope or the Patriarch if you know that the church is true, it’s totally irrational to think a church is true because the leaders say so.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

?

If you want to think of it in that sense, all I am saying is that Orthodox and RC are definitely NOT BOTH part of the Catholic church. It’s impossible. One church is ok with Divorce and birth control while the other is not. If they are both Catholic, it’s a logical contradiction.

I admit that the similarities between Orthodox and RC are greater. BUT, so is the case with some of the liberal Catholic groups you will find where I live. The conclusion is not that they are also part of the greater “Catholic Church” but more correctly, one is the true church and the other is just an incomplete church.

God Bless

 

[Mike_Barberena]

?

If you want to think of it in that sense, all I am saying is that Orthodox and RC are definitely NOT BOTH part of the Catholic church. It’s impossible. One church is ok with Divorce and birth control while the other is not. If they are both Catholic, it’s a logical contradiction.

I admit that the similarities between Orthodox and RC are greater. BUT, so is the case with some of the liberal Catholic groups you will find where I live. The conclusion is not that they are also part of the greater “Catholic Church” but more correctly, one is the true church and the other is just an incomplete church.

God Bless

 

[sidbrown]

One church is ok with Divorce and birth control while the other is not.

If a Catholic wants to get an annulment in the USA, the Catholic tribunal requires that the couple obtain a divorce even before it will look at the case.
With reference to birth control, does religious affiliation make any difference as to whether a married couple will use birth control or not? Except that Muslims seem to have large families, whereas Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are opting for smaller families with fewer children.

 

[ddarko]

If a Catholic wants to get an annulment in the USA, the Catholic tribunal requires that the couple obtain a divorce even before it will look at the case.
With reference to birth control, does religious affiliation make any difference as to whether a married couple will use birth control or not? Except that Muslims seem to have large families, whereas Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are opting for smaller families with fewer children.

I don’t know which church you belong to since you seem to use the word “Catholic” loosely, BUT if you are Roman Catholic, you should know that IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE if you use birth control. It is a SIN. Whether you are married OR not, the same applies. In fact, if you are married, the sin is probably tied to more grave temporal consequences.

As for Divorce, you are confusing civil law with morality here.

Orthodox and Protestants are being immoral by allowing divorce and birth control. I advice you to look in to Roman Catholic church’s teachings on the matter if you are indeed Roman Catholic.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Hey they might vary, all I am saying is that if they have contradictory positions, the word “Catholic” is just an incorrect use.

There can only be one true church. It might be psychologically comforting to think that we are all Catholics or as some LOVE to put it, “aren’t we all Christians?” but one has to face the truth at one point.

If the Orthodox church allows Divorce and Birth control, that is immoral. No matter how similar we are to them, one of us is wrong and non-Catholic.

You know whats more similar to RC than Orthodox? The Roman Catholics who start there own little thing by simply laying aside one simple sin or doctrine. They have everything the same. Some like to have a “Catholic” church where same sex marriage goes. Oh what about the RC sects that ordinate women? They are probably more Roman Catholic than Orthodox in the rest of the beliefs. They like to call themselves “Catholic” but I am sure you would agree that it’s a misuse. Unless you want to use the term synonymously in the way people use the word “Christian” these days, I really don’t see how you can call the Orthodox church Catholic.

In conclusion, I don’t see any logical reason why we should consider the Orthodox church or any other church with contradictory doctrines as all being “Catholic”. The correct conclusion is that only one of them is Catholic and all of the others are simply incomplete.

God Bless

 

[Mike_Barberena]

Allowances are always being made and if our separated search for the truth and unity, they have to accept all of the Catholic Church. They will not only need to change some or most of their views, they must understand that the Primacy of Saint Peter is Pope.

From John (Salza Post ) “Catholicism does not teach that Peter is the fulfillment. Peter is only the earthly representative of the fulfillment. However, just as Moses, for example, had the seat of authority, had access to God’s infallible judgments, and ruled over his people, Peter holds the same position in the Church of the New Testament (which is the Catholic Church). Peter, in that sense, is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament leaders combined (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.)”

In that a unity of all separated brothers that want unity, must follow all of the Church and God’s Laws.

I agree with you that they need to change for Christ first and then the Catholic Church…

Remain Blessed

 

[dcointin]

I would like to suggest that the Catholic Church understands Orthodoxy in a different way. Take for example the following exerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (324) [324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.}

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.” (238) [238 UR 15 § 2; cf. CIC, can. 844 § 3.] "

This suggests a particular closeness, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Mike_Barberena]

Just Great guys, the fullness of Catholicism is Love of Christ, all of it. The world has people that love God, but not Jesus, or Love Jesus but not His Blessed Mother, we must love all of God, including all of Jesus and Holy Spirit. In the same way to love like the great Saints is something that gives me goosebumps, like Mother Teresa, who promoted Agape Love to every body regardless of faith.

The act of Unity is love over belief, however, because of faith we must have that love of God. All of God is His Pure Unconditional Love in Agape…

Remain blessed

 

[ddarko]

Yes I understood. I was only giving an extreme example with the ordination of women and similarity issue.

Because what if I and a group of Roman Catholic priests and Bishops start a schism by saying we disagree with just the ordination of women and we will keep everything else in the Roman Catholic doctrine and Tradition? I would say they are pretty close to us in a pretty unique way. Maybe even closer than the Orthodox. But it doesn’t change the fact that they are ultimately not “Catholic” unless we use it in some broad pluralistic sense.

That is my point.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I would like to suggest that the Catholic Church understands Orthodoxy in a different way. Take for example the following exerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (324) [324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.}

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.” (238) [238 UR 15 § 2; cf. CIC, can. 844 § 3.] "

This suggests a particular closeness, wouldn’t you agree?

I would pose the same question that I did to Carnelian above.

If me and a bunch of Roman Catholic priests and Bishops decide to cause a schism by accepting the ordination of women, but keeping every SINGLE one of the other doctrines intact, does that make us “Catholic”? We would certainly have a particular closeness to the Roman Catholic church for sure. So what’s different in this vs. that case?

If you answer is that there is nothing different, then Catholicism would just be a different word to describe the same phenomenon as Protestant denominations. Each can refuse a certain doctrine and as long as it is not too many differences, we can still call ourselves “Catholic”.

Is that your view?

I agree that there can be closeness but it’s the same as what I would say is the closeness between Catholicism and Judaism. Judaism is not False but neither is it Catholic. Or take Islam. It can be very similar in some aspects of its religion BUT it does not mean it’s Catholic.

That being said, I would admit that the fact that Orthodox are so similar would actually make it possible for them to easily convert and see the true faith. Take an atheist for an example, the person first has to accept God, Christ and the idea of Scripture, Tradition and so many other things that it can be pretty hard. On the other hand, the Orthodox are almost there. Just need to take the extra step forward. So yes, in that sense, their relationship with the truth can be considered unique but in no way does it make them Catholic to the fullest. If they can be called Catholic, so should all these groups who deny just some aspects of Roman Catholicism and start there own little thing. To me that seems unacceptable.

I think the same holds from an orthodox perspective.

So I honestly think that there is a misuse of the word “Catholic” just for the sake of pluralism.

God Bless

 

[sidbrown]

I don’t know which church you belong to since you seem to use the word “Catholic” loosely, BUT if you are Roman Catholic, you should know that IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE if you use birth control. It is a SIN. Whether you are married OR not, the same applies. In fact, if you are married, the sin is probably tied to more grave temporal consequences.

As for Divorce, you are confusing civil law with morality here.

Orthodox and Protestants are being immoral by allowing divorce and birth control. I advice you to look in to Roman Catholic church’s teachings on the matter if you are indeed Roman Catholic.

God Bless

Statistically, I believe that the number of Roman Catholics using ABC is roughly simlar to the number of non-Catholics using ABC, except possibly for the Muslims, who are having large families. At a local Catholic Jesuit college there was a poll taken of graduating students asking about ABC. After four years of Catholic instruction, 90% of the granduating students said that they thought it was OK for a married couple to use ABC.

 

[ddarko]

Statistically, I believe that the number of Roman Catholics using ABC is roughly simlar to the number of non-Catholics using ABC, except possibly for the Muslims, who are having large families. At a local Catholic Jesuit college there was a poll taken of graduating students asking about ABC. After four years of Catholic instruction, 90% of the granduating students said that they thought it was OK for a married couple to use ABC.

That is irrelevant. The fact that majority of Catholics do it does not make it right. That it-self is not a Catholic position btw. Whats next? Premarital sex and extra marital sex because so many at Universities practice it?

I am not going to elaborate more on this however since it really doesn’t concern this topic and might get this thread off track. It seems more of an issue with you not knowing that birth control has been considered Immoral and a SIN all this time. That is the Catholic position. I am sure you can find more clarification elsewhere on this site on this specific issue anyway.

So for the sake of this thread, I am going to assume that everyone knows that the Roman Catholic position on birth control when I reply.

God Bless

 

[dcointin]

I’m not arguing that Orthodoxy is “Catholic”, and I agree that to say so would only be a confusion of the two churches and a denial of the legitimate differences between us. What bothers me is that you seem to see Orthodoxy and any other Christian church, or any other religion, as virtually the same thing, not Catholic, with no distinction between them. For example, you said “I agree that there can be closeness but it’s the same as what I would say is the closeness between Catholicism and Judaism”. My point is that the Catholic Church itself views Orthodoxy as unique and affirms its orders, sacraments, etc. as valid in a way that does with almost no other church, and this is the basis for our ecumenical dialogue. You seem to see no need for this dialogue at all, just convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism if you agree with it, or vice versa. I think this attitude is terribly unfortunate, and again doesn’t recognize the unity that we once shared, and could again in the future.