Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[searn77]

If it is possible, isn’t that even worse, given the reality of the situation? To put it another way (and to continue with the example used in that post), if it is possible that neither side is 100% right, why it is necessary for the Roman Catholic side to declare so many “infallible” teachings on things that the other churches see as theologoumena? Surely in a world where absolute certainty is not possible, it is best not to act as though it is by declaring this or that necessary to be believed. See, that’s why I don’t like this thinking. It’s not as though either side actually behaves in a less than confident and assured manner, but the RC side falters in trying to somehow both reduce and retain its unique doctrines, depending on the context in which they are evoked. Maybe the Eastern Orthodox aren’t 100% right in their interpretation of what the Latins mean or do, but I know Rome’s approach produces nothing but squishiness and false suppositions. I’d rather affirm the reality of “We know where salvation is, not where it is not” then to have to play the game of “spot the infallible statement” with Rome again. Tfeh.

Okay, for the sake of argument, sure. Let’s see Rome admit the frailty of its positions and understandings of apostolic Christianity, renounce its false doctrines, come back to its long-held orthodoxy of the first centuries, and let’s have an ecumenical council.

Sorry to phrase it like that, but I did so on purpose, because this whole “apparent error and misunderstanding” business is a nice way to say WRONG, so let’s just cut the euphemisms, speak like the adults that we are, and say that instead. “Misunderstanding” is WRONG, correct? “Error” is definitely WRONG. And I don’t see Rome rushing to fix all of her errors and misunderstandings, at least not any faster than Alexandria or Constantinople might be (which is to say, not at all). It’s all fine to say there’s been misunderstanding on all sides (as I don’t know anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that), but that isn’t ever used as a means to actually pursue renewed communion, at least not in the modern day. Why? Because then Rome would have to actually admit it is wrong about something, and then CORRECT THAT THING. And that kind of throws a spanner into the works. The same could be said about the Orthodox, who would not be willing to admit that their holy fathers were wrong in their stances, either.

And then of course, if we are talking about EO and RC vs. OO, there are a whole different set of issues to be dealt with. While on our unity tour, do we invite St. Pope Discorous to join us? Well, I guess I’m not included in the “us”, since I’m not in union with either of you, but you know what I mean…it doesn’t end even if the schism of 1054 is healed.

Frankly, I think we are all better sticking to whatever theological guns we’ve grasped and (instead of trying to push for a unity that is NOT going to happen without the complete destruction of one or the other church) moving closer to our pre-schism roots. For some, this will just involve getting up in the morning and doing what they’ve always done. For others…well, there will be a lot of devotions, dogmas, and other associated finery to be jettisoned, so it is unlikely to be attractive to those who see Roman Catholicism as the faith once and for all delivered and preserved.

Short version: If you believe as you’ve written, practice what you preach and work to bring your church back to its pre-schism understanding of the other church.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying. In order for there to be a true union between the RC and EO, one side will have to say that it was in error and believe in everything the other Church teaches. Yes, politics and misunderstandings greatly contributed to the schism, but there are still theological and doctrinal differences between the RC and EO that separate us. To have a true unity of our Churches there needs to be a unity in belief. We shouldn’t “dumb down” our faith or gloss over certain aspects of our faith (whether you are RC or EO) in order to be more accepting of others.

At least, that is my $.02.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think alot of sincere Orthodox believers are apprehensive about a reunion with us because we often look like a modern, feel good church with little respect for tradition. Pretty hard to blame them for that.

That certainly leads to a significant amount of apprehension, but the Schism, and the reasons for it, predate the Modernist Heresy, and any fear thereof.

 

[Nine_Two]

Similar to what I stated before, which was, to the point, and scriptural: If the Infallible Holy Spirit is in fact infallibly guiding the Catholic Church into all truth, regarding only what Jesus taught, until the end of time, regardless of the weeds growing with the wheat, then the Catholic Church is in fact teaching infallibly, in spite of the fact that all the members of the CC are fallible, and will continue to do so as long as the HS continues to infallibly guide the CC, until the end of time.

I absolutely agree with what you said here, although I am pretty sure we can assume a difference of opinion on who the “Catholic Church” is. However you contradict Vat 1.

The key to the infallibility of the church, founded by God, are the keys given to Rock alone, upon which Jesus’ church is built, and the Rock, regardless of the generation, until the end of time, in the face of opposition, will always have a successive key holder and will always consult with the other Bishops, via council, who were entrusted with the authority to bind and loose, as well, and based on their decision as a collective entity, the vicar of Christ, the key holder, will make an official pronouncement that is representative of the collective. In the case of the EOC, it is each and every self-governing Eastern Orthodox See, with it’s own Pope/President, as the organizational head, and of course representative when it comes to matters of council with other co-equal Bishops/Presidents of other Sees, and it is believed that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the EOC as well, through the decisions made by the entire council, as opposed to just one individual which is the case in the CC, as I have already stated. The only difference between the CC and the EOC is the chair of Peter, representative of the key holder, and I believe the fix for this issue, between the EOC and the CC, will be a long time coming.

I’m curious what your point in saying Pope/President and Bishop/President is? They are Bishops, one holds the title of Pope, and they are certainly not equivalent to the Western view of Pope - which is part of the issue.
Nonetheless this is a discussion on the infallibility of the person of the Pope, not the infallibility of the Church.

An interesting thing is that I’m unaware of anywhere that the Infallibility of the Church was ever made doctrine. It is curious that an individuals would need to be if it were true.

As a former protestant, with leanings toward the EOC at one time, I often wondered why the early church fathers talked about the chair or throne of Peter, but now I know…

Peace and grace brother…

As a former Protestant who became Orthodox, I acknowledged that the Papacy certainly had a major role in the Church early on. This, however, does not equate with infallibility in that person, nor infallibility of the Metropolis of Rome.

 

[sidbrown]

We are not talking about a top-down decision making process. … With the lifting of the mutual excommunications back in the 1960s by agreement of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, the second received a major boost…

That seems like a top down decision.

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed, because the lifting of anathemas is a different, much more official matter than you personally embracing the pre-schism theology and rites of your church.

I brought up the lifting of the anathemas to show that while Catholics seem to like to pretend as though what is believed now will always and forever be that way, and as such they cannot come closer to an orthodox understanding of their own faith (i.e., cannot jettison harmful post-schism doctrines), clearly it is possible to recognize that mistakes have been made and to actually fix them. The problem then seems to be that Roman Catholics, both clerics and laity, do not actually see these post-schism doctrines as hurtful to the unity they claim to seek. This is why I wrote that you should come back to a pre-schism understanding. The more Catholics do that, the more it will become clear that it is beneficial for all to share the same faith, and at that point it will actually make sense to approach the Orthodox about reunion. If the Roman communion ever gets there, I don’t doubt that it will be successful.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it depends which Doctrines are in question also.

I don’t see issues with post schism teaching as far as Marion Doctrines being a problem. I do a see a problem with Lumin Gentium and 841 which is damaging.

And I do believe the Orthodox Church could help correct the problem. The Catholic Church IMHO was speaking pius and to many followers took that for Fact and Truth.

Personally I believe the quicker we unite the Church the better off we’ll all be and the faster the apostasy will stop. Matter of fact I"m positive of it.

 

[shaky]

The Holy Trinity is a mystery.

Better not speculate too much, it will only lead to more confusion.

The reason why i was speculating is because of the Issue with the filioque were the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the Son Simultaneously.

You as a Orthodox say the holy proceeds Just from the father first!! So was this the case when Mary was Impregnated? The holy spirit Just proceeded from the father when Mary Got Impregnated?

 

[ciero]

The reason why i was speculating is because of the Issue with the filioque were the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the Son Simultaneously.

You as a Orthodox say the holy proceeds Just from the father first!! So was this the case when Mary was Impregnated? The holy spirit Just proceeded from the father when Mary Got Impregnated?

I think you need to do a bit more homework even before you become a RC!!

 

[Nine_Two]

The reason why i was speculating is because of the Issue with the filioque were the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the Son Simultaneously.

You as a Orthodox say the holy proceeds Just from the father first!! So was this the case when Mary was Impregnated? The holy spirit Just proceeded from the father when Mary Got Impregnated?

We believe the Holy Spirit originates with the Father and is sent to mankind through the Son, as scripture clearly states.

 

[Madaglan]

The reason why i was speculating is because of the Issue with the filioque were the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the Son Simultaneously.

You as a Orthodox say the holy proceeds Just from the father first!! So was this the case when Mary was Impregnated? The holy spirit Just proceeded from the father when Mary Got Impregnated?

Hi shaky,

When Orthodox and Catholics speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit, they are speaking of the eternal procession within the Trinity. Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone, and Catholics believe the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.

The Incarnation is when the Word becomes flesh within the bosom of Mary. The conception is miraculous because it is through the power of the Holy Spirit. A cursory reading may lead one to think the Holy Spirit, along with the Father, cause the Incarnate Word. However, this is not the teaching of the Fathers. In the gospel accounts, the Holy Spirit later descends upon Christ when He is baptized, and Christ breathes the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is manifested in and through Christ.

 

[shaky]

Well, that depends on where you are. I think the New Testament makes it pretty clear that it is Peter who enunciates matters of doctrine (though not necessarily legislation) for the whole Church. I don’t think God would set it up that way without providing a protection against error. The same thing with the famous passage from Irenaeus. If everyone is supposed to agree with Rome, then that only makes sense if there is a guarantee that Rome will be right. When Pope Clement wrote to the Corinthians he said that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. Well, the Holy Spirit doesn’t commit error. And Clement wasn’t writing Scripture, so it wasn’t that sort of inspiration. The part of Matthew you mentioned, right after Jesus makes the “on this rock I will build my Church” statement, doesn’t mean that there was no infallibility in Peter’s confession of faith but was placed there so we would understand that Peter’s successor isn’t infallible all the time, most notably when he goes off without consulting with his brethren. I think, and this is just my opinion, that the Pope’s infallible statements are arrived at together with his fellow bishops in some fashion. The Pope is the one who makes the statement, and the Bishop of Rome can’t be replaced by the Bishop of Constantinople or Moscow for this purpose. But I think an infallible statement is an act of the whole Church in communion with Peter’s successor.

Now it seems you and I look at the same historical material and wind up with opposite views. And it’s true, I can’t get my head around the Orthodox position on these matters. All we can do is pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

OK. you say> That the Pope’s Infallible statements are arrived at together with his fellow bishops in some fashion.

Why was the fellow Eastern Orthodox bishops not Included when Arriving at these Infallible statements?

Are you saying only the bishops of Rome can arrive at Infallible statements?

What makes the bishops of Rome more Supreme over the Eastern bishops?

 

[shaky]

I agree with Hescychios here. With or without the Filioque, the mystery of the Holy Trinity isn’t going to be understandable using only human words and logic.

The Trinity has been explained in logical words by the church in there writings. Its not that difficult to understand. Everything in Life is a Trinity. Example: Human=Spirit, Body, Soul.
Sun=Fire, light, heat. Temperature=Hot,warm,Cold. Atom=Proton, Electron, Neutron.

 

[shaky]

Well, you asked my opinion, and I gave it. What do you say has been done historically? What’s the right way to handle these things, Ciero?

True tradition is historically what the early church taught in the beginning.

How can you call something true tradition when the new teachings came at a much later date?

 

[Nine_Two]

The Trinity has been explained in logical words by the church in there writings. Its not that difficult to understand. Everything in Life is a Trinity. Example: Human=Spirit, Body, Soul.
Sun=Fire, light, heat. Temperature=Hot,warm,Cold. Atom=Proton, Electron, Neutron.

That is verging on modalism, I think, which is the danger when you define the trinity.

 

[shaky]

Yes Joe as I said earlier the church is infallible…when speaking in an Ecumenical Council…this power does NOT rest in one man.

Nor should the Power Rest on one group of bishops in Rome!! All bishops should be involved East and West in the Ecumenical Council:shrug:

 

[shaky]

Primacy to Supremacy comes MUCH later then the split…although IMHO split does not really describe what happened…it was more of a growing apart. Can anyone really pin down a moment in time for “the split”?

Well i know the Filioque started brewing around the 6Th century.But at the council in 1054AD. Rome decided to force the Issue on the Filioque and there Supremacy to make the Filioque Infallible.
Because the Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed. The Patriarch of Rome excommunicated him.
In turn the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Patriarch of Rome.
It was a power struggle!!

 

[shaky]

Why are you telling me that? Tell those who use the verse to argue that Peter was infallible.

Was it that Peter was only Infallible when he used the Council?

 

[shaky]

This has been a point I’ve tried to make for years, Ciero. I think some people think that because there is a commonly accepted date when the split was finalized, then that means that there must have been one or two happenings that we can point to and say “aha! THAT’S why the split happened, so if we just find a way to fix that, we can be united again!” I hate to say it, but NO. That’s not going to happen. If the Pope stopped claiming universal jurisdiction or the post-schism dogmatic pronouncements tomorrow, we would still be dealing with two ontologically different churches. The Roman Mass was changed from Greek to Latin under Pope Victor, who was Pope of Rome 189-199 AD. This, of course, does not point to the inevitability of the Schism so much as how far back in history the East and the West began to develop in their own unique ways, which of course led to schism once one or both sides stopped seeing the understanding of the other as being in harmony with their own.

It was a power struggle that was developing!! Things came to head in 1054AD at the council.

 

[Madaglan]

The Trinity has been explained in logical words by the church in there writings. Its not that difficult to understand. Everything in Life is a Trinity. Example: Human=Spirit, Body, Soul.
Sun=Fire, light, heat. Temperature=Hot,warm,Cold. Atom=Proton, Electron, Neutron.

Sure, but what about male and female?

 

[coco2]

I support union of Catholic and Orthodox in any of those possible ways. Can you imagine how the world will change when we are united? Pray for unity! Starting there, then bring anglicans into the flock. If we were all praying for unity, God would provide the way for it to happen.