Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Madaglan]

Those Orthodox Churches that have Western Rite parishes insist on the adding of an epiklesis and the deleting of the Filioque, as well as the acceptance of all Orthodox doctines and the Rudder.

What this points out is that Eastern or Western Liturgics and other practices should not stop us from union.

I would not expect an Orthodox Church to simply abandon their position for the sake of unity either. However engaging in honest talks and invoking the assistance of the Holy Ghost in all of this will hopefully accomplish the prayer of Christ that we would all be one.

On the added epiklesis, I do not see the addition as anything wrong-minded.

It even seemed good in the Latin Church to add an explicit epiclesis with the introduction of the Novus Ordo.

 

[Filioque]

I don’t see the epiklesis as being wrong, but there are those among the Orthodox who have used the lack of an overt epiklesis among the Latins as a reason to deny the validity of the Latin Rites, and insist on its addition among the WRO liturgies. The point of my posting was that in order to become WRO, one must include the addition of the epiklesis. If one converts to Orthodoxy, then I would expect such an addition to a Western Liturgy, otherwise one would not be Orthodox.

The reason however that I brought it up is the posting I was commenting on was one that seemed to at the very least imply that the Catholic Church was asking for too much by wanting anyone who came into unity with it assent to Her doctrines. If the Orthodox can (and should) require that anyone who comes into unity with it, I don’t see how the same requirements from the Catholic Church are unreasonable.

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t see the epiklesis as being wrong, but there are those among the Orthodox who have used the lack of an overt epiklesis among the Latins as a reason to deny the validity of the Latin Rites, and insist on its addition among the WRO liturgies. The point of my posting was that in order to become WRO, one must include the addition of the epiklesis. If one converts to Orthodoxy, then I would expect such an addition to a Western Liturgy, otherwise one would not be Orthodox.

The reason however that I brought it up is the posting I was commenting on was one that seemed to at the very least imply that the Catholic Church was asking for too much by wanting anyone who came into unity with it assent to Her doctrines. If the Orthodox can (and should) require that anyone who comes into unity with it, I don’t see how the same requirements from the Catholic Church are unreasonable.

I see the concern of Orthodox regarding the presence of an epiklesis as appropriate (just as the concern regarding the presence of the words of institution is appropriate with the liturgy of Addai and Mari). I know that an overt epiclesis was added, but I thought this was to strengthen the implied epiclesis. I would not be surprised, however, were there Orthodox who see no explicit epiclesis as meaning no epiclesis.

It makes sense to me that, if someone comes into union with the Catholic Church, the person should assent to the doctrines of the same.

 

[Daedelus76]

I don’t think a union will be possible because the orthodox churches do not accept the doctrine of the catholic church like a priest not to marry and also honouring Mary as the Mother of God.

Those issues are actually way less divisive than you’ld imagine.

I think in some ways the Orthodox are closer to some Protestants (conservative broad-church and high church Anglicans are very close to the Orthodox in their approach to things, perhaps in some ways closer than Roman Catholics). I have a good friend I chat alot with online who is Orthodox (Old Calendar for 8 years, but he was formerly Buddhist then irreligious).

 

[karoleck]

"As Benedict XIV implored:

**The Church does not require schismatics to abandon their rites when they return to Catholic unity, but only that they forswear and detest heresy. **Its great desire is for the preservation, not the destruction, of different peoples – in short, that all may be Catholic rather than all become Latin.
(Benedict XIV, 1775, §48)

Another intention of this paper is that it seeks to reveal the beauty of the Catholic Church to the reader and hopefully create in the hearts of the faithful a deeper and more aware love for Christ’s Bride here on earth. It is in short a response to Pope John Paul II’s call in Orientale Lumen: “I believe that one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another”. (John Paul II, 1995, § 47)

My comments although critical at times of the Latin Church do not seek to diminish the Latin Church, nor its members, but point out and explore a number of quite serious problems within the Latin Church, which have affected and still negatively influence the life of the entire Catholic Church as well as Her own self. I unequivocally revere the role that the Latin Church offers, as with all her sister Churches to the schema of the Church Universal. What I write in this paper is a summative echo of what many Popes for hundreds of years have exhorted. If the Catholic Church does not act on these many Papal letters and encyclicals, then criticism levelled at the Catholic Church as to Her only being ecumenical to the point of lip-service may be true.

This paper is written with a spirit of charity, which hopes to assist the entire Church in becoming more Catholic in its every day ecclesiastical and spiritual reality. To do this both East and West must enter into a new marriage, one of equality and respect, one where to borrow from Cardinal Newman, “heart speaks to heart” (Ker, 1988, p.719). As John Paul II has written:" Quote by Andrew T Kania reference web link my post no 75.

 

[JRKH]

The Holy Spirit won’t enter into a situation when everyone’s hardhats are firmly in place, as evidenced by the poll results showing that 47% of Catholics expect Orthodox Christians to submit to their doctrine.

But here is the thing. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are NOT democracies. They are part of a Kingdom headed by The Son of God Himself, AND guided by God’s most Holy Spirit. When one considers that both Churches have committed to talks to overcome our differences, it would appear that, in spite of what some “laypeople” think, the “Churches” themselves do not have their, “hardhats firmly in place”,

It does not matter how many Catholics laypersons think this, or how many Orthodox think the Catholics need to “submit”. What matters is what the two Churches determine in prayerful council with each other under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, the poll attached to this thread is a perfect example of poorly worded choices. I said in my very first resonse here that I could not vote because there was no proper choice for me. That choice being that we should achieve reunification under whatever form is decided upon by the Church leadership. That could involve one side giving more than the other or it could mean “meeting halfway” or it could mean achieving a greater and deeper understanding of our faith as a whole.
If this choice had been offered in the poll I’m sure we would have seen very different numbers.

Peace
James

 

[Hesychios]

"As Benedict XIV implored:

The Church does not require schismatics to abandon their rites when they return to Catholic unity, but only that they forswear and detest heresy.

If people did not forswear and detest heresy, they could not and would not be Orthodox.

This is precisely what attracts so many.

 

[Triciacat]

Those Orthodox Churches that have Western Rite parishes insist on the adding of an epiklesis and the deleting of the Filioque, as well as the acceptance of all Orthodox doctines and the Rudder.

However engaging in honest talks and invoking the assistance of the Holy Ghost in all of this will hopefully accomplish the prayer of Christ that we would all be one.

I had the opportunity to visit a Western Rite parish and noticed no such thing. Agreed, we must all approach “as children” to let the Holy Spirit guide us.

 

[aspirant]

When one considers that both Churches have committed to talks to overcome our differences, it would appear that, in spite of what some “laypeople” think, the “Churches” themselves do not have their, “hardhats firmly in place”

It does not matter how many Catholics laypersons think this, or how many Orthodox think the Catholics need to “submit”. What matters is what the two Churches determine in prayerful council with each other under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, the poll attached to this thread is a perfect example of poorly worded choices. I said in my very first resonse here that I could not vote because there was no proper choice for me.

Yes, the possible responses are very limited and dubiously worded. Some people, like James, will choose not to answer because none of them seem suitable. Some may choose an answer that seems to them closest to their view but still think the wording is problematic. Some may interpret the wording of an answer very differently than others do… I wouldn’t put too much stock in the poll here, nor would I assume that the answers here are representative of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or other Christians generally.

 

[karoleck]

If people did not forswear and detest heresy, they could not and would not be Orthodox.

This is precisely what attracts so many.

That is true on both points on what you say-- However most Orthodox church people are that because of “Historic reasons”.They did not one day do a comparitive religeous class and say ‘The Latin Church says this,the Greek Church says this,one says this about a theological teachings ,it is heresy but I will believe this anyway’! The children’s children over much time have inherited the Orthodox rite and traditions.Once the break with Rome was made,well of course they will not have in their Creed the Dogmatic Statements of The Roman Church since that time!
.The feast of The Assumtion and its’belief was proclaimed in 1950,The Orthodox people still believe this doctrine.This applies to basically all the other differences between the Churches.The "sticking point is still accepting The Holy Father as the chief bishop! There was wrong done on both parties concerned at that time when the split was formally promulgated.I mean accepting the Gregorian Callender of the Latin church in its’Liturgical Feastdays can easily be fixed.Fore that matter,the Latin church could shifts it’s Easter Triduum to co inside with the Greek one. If this brought unity,well in my view it would be a small price to pay–that being getting the Latin books back to a printer!!
As to the Orthodox attracting new members because of it’s liturgy,well these people must be rather shallow in their beliefs as reason–an intellectual assent of the mind to the Truth is what will last!

 

[Seamus_L]

The Orthodox tend to be alot more realistic about the reunion of our respective churches. For some reason they realise better than most Catholics, that a reunion as currently proposed, would be one that exists in name only.

 

[Aramis]

The Orthodox tend to be alot more realistic about the reunion of our respective churches. For some reason they realise better than most Catholics, that a reunion as currently proposed, would be one that exists in name only.

Almost all Orthodox “proposals” in the past have, essentially, been “Byzantification is essential” and “If it ain’t byzantine, it’s heretical”… which lead towards uniatism.

Not that Rome’s offer was, until recently, that much better.

Both have mellowed quite a bit in the last 50 years. Now, real dialogue exists, and a whole generation on both sides is thinking it may eventually be possible to be something other than absolute submission.

 

[SunnaB16]

Option #1 and:
whatever parts of Option #3 dont contradict Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals. ie: cant vote.
Surely, different practices wouldnt be a problem. Itd be no more difficult than the variations we already have with the different Eastern Rites.

 

[mardukm]

Almost all Orthodox “proposals” in the past have, essentially, been “Byzantification is essential” and “If it ain’t byzantine, it’s heretical”… which lead towards uniatism.

Not that Rome’s offer was, until recently, that much better.

Both have mellowed quite a bit in the last 50 years. Now, real dialogue exists, and a whole generation on both sides is thinking it may eventually be possible to be something other than absolute submission.

That’s a wonderfully incisive commentary, brother Aramis.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Almost all Orthodox “proposals” in the past have, essentially, been “Byzantification is essential” and “If it ain’t byzantine, it’s heretical”…

Would you care to provide some references to this ?

I have not seen anything like that.

 

[mardukm]

Would you care to provide some references to this ?

I have not seen anything like that.

Personally, I recall reading at orthodoxinfo.org the sophistic means by which many EO continue to reject unity with the OOC. The EO are nitpicking at certain statements trying to get the OO to admit to a specifically Eastern Byzantine understanding of certain terminologies in the Christological forum. Agreement in Christological Faith is not enough, it seems, to certain EO, and everything down to the smallest detail must align with the Byzantine understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don’t think a union will be possible because the orthodox churches do not accept the doctrine of the catholic church like a priest not to marry and also honouring Mary as the Mother of God.

What was that thing I learned in Theology… Oh yeah! Theotokos!!!

Yes, the Orthodox do have a love and adoration of the Mother of God. Ask them.

 

[mardukm]

Theology is (of course) a big part of that, and for that this poll is worthwhile, but it bears asking “are we trying to replicate the first millenium church, or are we trying to build on a new model?”

This is a very wise and incisive comment. I think all the apostolic Churches have gone through developments that makes them somewhat different from the primordial Church. I just keep thinking that unity will come and can only come through understanding each other as we are, not through uniformity or compromise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JRKH]

This is a very wise and incisive comment. I think all the apostolic Churches have gone through developments that makes them somewhat different from the primordial Church. I just keep thinking that unity will come and can only come through understanding each other as we are, not through uniformity or compromise.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, I believe that, just as, " developments (have made) them somewhat different from the primordial Church", True unity, and eventual uniformity (in doctrine, not necessarily practice), will develop from greater understanding and Love between the East and West. As each recognizes and embraces the great gifts of the other, they will grow together in Love until true unity is complete.

Peace
James

 

[MGLechner]

I see that slightly over 48 % voted that the Orthodox Church must accept all essential Catholic dogmas before reunification will occur. If that is the case, then there will not be a reunification of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Orthodox Church will never accept “transubstantiation” or the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. That is why I voted to keep them seperate.