East/West Reunification- a consideration

[ConstantineTG]

So then I guess you guys should stop your missionary activity in e.g. Japan?

That will probably be what will happen if a reunification takes place. Which is kind of an oxymoron because there is no way a reunification will happen if such is the conditions given by Rome (that she keeps her defined territories as of today).

 

[Surnaturel]

I appreciate the irenicism of this post, and I think you’re onto something.

I agree that the Orthodox churches acceptance of infallibility needn’t be a prerequisite for reunion. However, from the Catholic perspective, dogma defined by a pope or a council (including post-schism) is universally true, it´s not ‘binding only on the West.’ In other words, from the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox are in error on this point, but the error need not impede full communion (i.e., it’s not heretical).

The fact that many Orthodox deny the divine institution of the Petrine primacy is a larger problem, since this came directly from the Lord.

I agree that dogma such as the Immaculate Conception and others from the post-schism council could be ‘re-received’, that is, framed in different theological language.

But the difficulty, of course, is not finding Eastern equivalents that the Catholic Church could accept. The West is quite accustomed to ‘translating’ its doctrine into other cultural milieux.

The difficulty is that the Orthodox laity (or the Athonites, for that matter) are not willing to accept that Catholic formulae are not heretical, and no number of shared documents can change that. The obvious example is the filioque, which the West has tried to explain for over a millennium.

I agree with you on dogma defined by the Pope being universally binding. With regard to the Marian dogmas (Ex Cathedra), as you rightly pointed out, there is already the equivalent, IMO, that affirms the truth of our dogmas insofar as the Orthodox seem to believe that Mary is sinless and the Dormition of Mary (bodily assumed).

In a united Church, though, I think that the Pope could qualify that his use of infallibility In the past is only exercisable in times of schism, but infallibility could be expressed in a united Church as the autonomy and ability of the Pope to ratify local traditions that are binding on Western Christians.

The laity certainly is the problem and that I am afraid may take more time than you and I will live to see.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
So then I guess you guys should stop your missionary activity in e.g. Japan?

I’m usually not one to get into “here’s how it will be if we re-unite” (in part because, as you know, re-union is a pretty far-off idea), but I think you’re wrong here. Just because Catholicism doesn’t have a sui iuris Japanese Church doesn’t in any way mean that Rome would insist that she alone, and not the Orthodox, has claim to Japan in the event of re-union.

 

[Peter_J]

No one is asking the Orthodox to accept infallibility as binding on the EO/OO Church.

Well, Yes and No. It is a requirement for coming into communion with Rome (not that I think Orthodox should come into communion with Rome anyhow, I’m “just saying”) but it’s not a requirement for improving relations between them and us.

 

[Nine_Two]

How can something be infallible (without error) in one area of the world, but fallible (with the potential for error) in another part of the world?

That makes no sense. Infallibility cannot be understood as only applying in certain places.

 

[Surnaturel]

How can something be infallible (without error) in one area of the world, but fallible (with the potential for error) in another part of the world?

That makes no sense. Infallibility cannot be understood as only applying in certain places.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Infallibility is not understood as locally effective which is why an agreement of some sort would have to be reached with regard to Marian dogmas. However, in the event of a reunion, the Pope would not exercise this action at least not unilaterally.

The last part was proposing that the Pope could ratify local traditions unilaterally in the West much like synods do in the East, in a similar mode or as an expression of infallibility.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree. This is why I proposed that Rome retains its jurisdictional authority over its own Church and the other Churches do the same and the uniates have the option of who’s jurisdiction they will be under just like the Ecumenical Patriarch has eparchs.

What did you think about the patriarch council and the rest of the OP? I would be interested in an Orthodox perspective. But a lot of this former from my reading of Orthodox theologians.

Iam sorry Surnaturel,** I have to agree with Constantine,** this model has alot of holes in it that does not address the heart of the schism. Further more, I see a complacency effort being put forth that contradicts Sacred scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Roman Church moving on it’s own for re-unification does not work as you have described here; (This is why I proposed that Rome retains its jurisdictional authority over its own Church and the other Churches do the same and the uniates have the option of who’s jurisdiction they will be under just like the Ecumenical Patriarch has eparchs.)

Present reality presents the spring of Islam is underway. These particular Eastern Church’s not united with Rome stand to be eliminated by Islam if current growth of Islam persist’s. These particular Eastern Church’s either begin to suffer martyrdom and allow God’s grace to move as God has done with the Roman Church in the very beginning of the Church or move with Rome’s efforts to re-unite. In any case it resides in God’s hand how this will happen in the near future. I don’t buy into the model you present here, because it never addresses the real issues of reality, and a process of healing and forgiveness that is required to begin a real re-unificiation.

That said, the baby steps that appear to be moving is a step in the right direction, prayerfully that it does not create more bitter rival-ries and more distance between East and West relations when it is said and done.

Peace be with you all

 

[Surnaturel]

Iam sorry Surnaturel,** I have to agree with Constantine,** this model has alot of holels in it that does not address the heart of the schism. Further more, I see a complacency effort being put forth that contradicts Sacred scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Roman Church moving on it’s own for re-unification does not work as you have described here; (This is why I proposed that Rome retains its jurisdictional authority over its own Church and the other Churches do the same and the uniates have the option of who’s jurisdiction they will be under just like the Ecumenical Patriarch has eparchs.)

Present reality presents the spring of Islam is underway. These particular Eastern Church’s not united with Rome stand to be eliminated by Islam if current growth of Islam persist’s. These particular Eastern Church’s either begin to suffer martyrdom and allow God’s grace to move as God has done with the Roman Church in the very beginning of the Church or move with Rome’s efforts to re-unite. In any case it resides in God’s hand how this will happen in the near future. I don’t buy into the model you present here, because it never addresses the real issues of reality, and a process of healing and forgiveness that is required to begin a real re-unificiation.

That said, the baby steps that appear to be moving is a step in the right direction, prayerfully that it does not create more bitter rivalveries and more distance between East and West relations when it is said and done.

Peace be with you all

Thanks for your response. I might ask why the Pope retaining his supreme jurisdiction over the West but not having jurisdiction over the churches in the East contradicts scripture?

I do fully agree with you, though, that this cannot be a one sided affair on the behalf of Rome. The outline that I provide here begins with the Church reforming some forms of governance which as it stands now is a serious problem which Pope Benedict warned us of. The more I have been researching the more that I think that, per Ratzinger’s suggestion, the continents of Africa, N and S America, and Asia could be put under the control of regional patriarchs who must be ratified by Rome. They would, like the ECs, be under the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, but also be given a relative degree of autonomy.

I think that a start is to see which ideas share affinity with both EO and RC as a preliminary step to the discussion.

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Infallibility is not understood as locally effective which is why an agreement of some sort would have to be reached with regard to Marian dogmas. However, in the event of a reunion, the Pope would not exercise this action at least not unilaterally.

The last part was proposing that the Pope could ratify local traditions unilaterally in the West much like synods do in the East, in a similar mode or as an expression of infallibility.

The problem with this is that it would force us to recognize he has it (we don’t believe that he does), and second it would mean he would have to earn our trust that neither he, nor any of his successors would ever try to use it to impose something on the East using it. And while Pope Francis seems unlikely to do that (he just doesn’t strike me as an autocrat), I can’t speak for what his successors will be like.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem with this is that it would force us to recognize he has it (we don’t believe that he does), and second it would mean he would have to earn our trust that neither he, nor any of his successors would ever try to use it to impose something on the East using it. And while Pope Francis seems unlikely to do that (he just doesn’t strike me as an autocrat), I can’t speak for what his successors will be like.

If only we can have Pope Francis forever, maybe unity will be a reality

 

[Tomdstone]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Infallibility is not understood as locally effective which is why an agreement of some sort would have to be reached with regard to Marian dogmas. However, in the event of a reunion, the Pope would not exercise this action at least not unilaterally.

What would happen if there was an agreement not to exercise infallibility but then later on a different Pope decided that this was not in accord with Vatican I and that he believed that Vatican I gave him the right to exercise that power.

 

[Surnaturel]

What would happen if there was an agreement not to exercise infallibility but then later on a different Pope decided that this was not in accord with Vatican I and that he believed that Vatican I gave him the right to exercise that power.

Schism or deposition of the Pope, since an ecumenical council would have a canon prohibiting such exercise of power without consent among the brother bishops.

 

[Tomdstone]

Schism or deposition of the Pope, since an ecumenical council would have a canon prohibiting such exercise of power without consent among the brother bishops.

So in your view and ecumenical council is higher than the Pope? Also, is a present Pope bound by something agreed to by a previous Pope?

 

[Peter_J]

Also, is a present Pope bound by something agreed to by a previous Pope?

Not in an absolute sense, no.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not in an absolute sense, no.

So even if a previous Pope had agreed not to exercise his infallibility, this would not bind a future pope to that agreement? In that case, I don;t see how the Orthodox would accept any agreement of a pope not to exercise his infallibility. AFAIK, the Orthodox simply do not accept papal infallibility, which means that there will not be a reunion unless the RCC throws out this doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

So even if a previous Pope had agreed not to exercise his infallibility, this would not bind a future pope to that agreement?

Well, I don’t think we can be absolutely sure that he wouldn’t. We’re all imperfect, unpredictable human beings after all.

In that case, I don;t see how the Orthodox would accept any agreement of a pope not to exercise his infallibility. AFAIK, the Orthodox simply do not accept papal infallibility, which means that there will not be a reunion unless the RCC throws out this doctrine.

I don’t we could *predict *a union regardless. Neither side has ever indicated that they will go over to the other side’s thinking.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So even if a previous Pope had agreed not to exercise his infallibility, this would not bind a future pope to that agreement? In that case, I don;t see how the Orthodox would accept any agreement of a pope not to exercise his infallibility. AFAIK, the Orthodox simply do not accept papal infallibility, which means that there will not be a reunion unless the RCC throws out this doctrine.

You are right. Regardless of what the Pope says about exercising infallibility, as long that is a dogma in the Roman Catholic Church, there will be no communion with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

So even if a previous Pope had agreed not to exercise his infallibility, this would not bind a future pope to that agreement? In that case, I don;t see how the Orthodox would accept any agreement of a pope not to exercise his infallibility. .

Popes are bound by dogma (whether the source is a council, a previous ex cathedra statement, or from the ordinary magisterium), but I don’t believe a pope would be bound by a disciplinary agreement.

Still, Pastor Aeternus needn’t be the only statement providing conditions for a pope to speak infallibly. The church may have more dogmatically to say about the conditions and nature of ex cathedra statements. Though, of course, future clarifications could not contradict the solemn dogmatic assertions of Pastor Aeternus

AFAIK, the Orthodox simply do not accept papal infallibility, which means that there will not be a reunion unless the RCC throws out this doctrine.

I must admit, things seemed much more possible 20 or 30 years ago. From the Catholic side, it seemed like (for better or for worse) there might be a willingness to tolerate being in communion with churches who did not fully accept all of the second order dogmata. Hence, the Ratzinger proposal and the Zoghby initiative.

In 1998, Pope John Paul II promulgated Ad Tuendam Fidem, which adds to the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches norms ‘which
expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the
Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.’

This includes an oath of fidelity from all clergy, eastern and western, to uphold not only first-order, divinely revealed truths, but also truths proposed as definitive by the magisterium and non-definitive, authentic teachings of the magisterium.

None of this touches the Orthodox directly, but Eastern Catholic Joseph Barstad’s article Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby Initiative Dead? suggests that the Catholic Church has moved away from Ratzinger´s model of returning to a first-millennium style reunion.

I don’t object to any of this, as it seems to me absolutely appropriate that those in communion with Rome profess the doctrinal faith of Rome. But it does raise the bar to full communion (or, depending on how one reads the Ratzinger proposal, maybe the bar only seems higher).

We can (and should) continue to work toward reunion and to hope for reunion. But the ecumenical landscape has changed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Popes are bound by dogma (whether the source is a council, a previous ex cathedra statement, or from the ordinary magisterium), but I don’t believe a pope would be bound by a disciplinary agreement.

Still, Pastor Aeternus needn’t be the only statement providing conditions for a pope to speak infallibly. The church may have more dogmatically to say about the conditions and nature of ex cathedra statements. Though, of course, future clarifications could not contradict the solemn dogmatic assertions of Pastor Aeternus

Doesn’t this means that you guys are just making stuff up?

 

[Peter_J]

You are right. Regardless of what the Pope says about exercising infallibility, as long that is a dogma in the Roman Catholic Church, there will be no communion with the Orthodox Churches.

Says you! :hey_bud:

I say there will be no communion with the Orthodox Churches until the Orthodox are on-board with Papal Infallibility. :choocho: