How Could EO and the CC reunite?

[ConstantineTG]

I was under the impression that further truth could be defined according to the code of canon law.

Canon Law is not meant to be the law of belief.

 

[Peter_J]

True but there is a big difference between “there are no easy answers” and “we shouldn’t even talk about it.”

Oh, I quite agree with you there. You’ll have to excuse me, I didn’t read every single post on this thread. If someone’s pushing a “we shouldn’t even talk about it” attitude, then he/she is quite wrong.

BTW, going back to your original statement

So I am of the opinion that if the great schism ended, there would be no valid excuse to be Protestant anymore.

You might be interested to know that you’re in good company:

Father Richard John Neuhaus eloquently spoke for this Roman Catholic assessment at the Rose Hill Conference in South Carolina last May, when he declared that the only thing really separating the two groups [Catholics and Orthodox] was the bare act of removing the separation. Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e#ixzz1oxfdVqQy

 

[Peter_J]

I was just thinking …

A number of years ago, there was a thread about reunion, titled “Why don’t we just do it?” or something like that.

There may not be any easy answer to that question (either). But as someone who once supported that kind of thinking, let me just say that part of the appeal for me was that I thought that “just doing it” had never been tried, and ergo needed to be tried.

I may have been right in thinking it needed to be tried, but I know now that I was wrong in thinking it had never been tried. It was tried, most notably, in the Union of Brest (1596), in the Union of Uzhhorod (1646), and in the 1726 union with the Melkites.

When you think about it, what’s new in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues since Vatican II, is the lack of just-doing-it.

 

[Taestron]

You might be interested to know that you’re in good company:

Father Richard John Neuhaus eloquently spoke for this Roman Catholic assessment at the Rose Hill Conference in South Carolina last May, when he declared that the only thing really separating the two groups [Catholics and Orthodox] was the bare act of removing the separation. Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”

Interesting. I especially like the phrase “real Mrs. Jesus.” Although I’m not quite sure that Father Neuhaus is correct in saying that separation itself is all that is separating the two traditions.

I was just thinking …

A number of years ago, there was a thread about reunion, titled “Why don’t we just do it?” or something like that.

There may not be any easy answer to that question (either). But as someone who once supported that kind of thinking, let me just say that part of the appeal for me was that I thought that “just doing it” had never been tried, and ergo needed to be tried.

I may have been right in thinking it needed to be tried, but I know now that I was wrong in thinking it had never been tried. It was tried, most notably, in the Union of Brest (1596), in the Union of Uzhhorod (1646), and in the 1726 union with the Melkites.

When you think about it, what’s new in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues since Vatican II, is the lack of just-doing-it.

You raise an interesting point. From an outsider’s perspective, there seems to be more to do than “just doing it.” But perhaps if we trying the “doing” with careful respect to the dialogs that have happened since Vatican II, perhaps it would meet with more success.

 

[Peter_J]

Interesting. I especially like the phrase “real Mrs. Jesus.” Although I’m not quite sure that Father Neuhaus is correct in saying that separation itself is all that is separating the two traditions.

You raise an interesting point. From an outsider’s perspective, there seems to be more to do than “just doing it.” But perhaps if we trying the “doing” with careful respect to the dialogs that have happened since Vatican II, perhaps it would meet with more success.

Yes, I think you hit on just the right question. Many people, nowadays, believe that the Union of Brest was wrong … but then the question becomes, Now that we’ve had Vatican II and some subsequent dialogue, now should we just-do-it?

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, I think you hit on just the right question. Many people, nowadays, believe that the Union of Brest was wrong … but then the question becomes, Now that we’ve had Vatican II and some subsequent dialogue, now should we just-do-it?

What has Vatican II really changed? Attitudes have changed on an official level, but what assurances do we have that they won’t change back? After all many of the laity cling to the old attitudes or something not far from them

 

[Peter_J]

                 Originally Posted by **Peter J**

Well, many things, but relevant to this discussion is the one I mentioned before: the lack, in recent dialogues, of pressuring the Orthodox to “just do it”.

Nevertheless, that’s puts us in a rather tricky situation, and I can see the how the Orthodox would be skeptical of that as justification for “just doing it” now. (Imagine, if you will, that Bob is always pestering Sue for something, and she’s always saying No. Then one day, after he asks for the umpteenth time, Sue says “You know, I hate the way you’re always pestering me about that.” Thoughtfully, Bob replies “Well, I guess I can see how you’d feel that way. If I stop pestering you, will you do it?”)

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, many things, but relevant to this discussion is the one I mentioned before: the lack, in recent dialogues, of pressuring the Orthodox to “just do it”.

Nevertheless, that’s puts us in a rather tricky situation, and I can see the how the Orthodox would be skeptical of that as justification for “just doing it” now. (Imagine, if you will, that Bob is always pestering Sue for something, and she’s always saying No. Then one day, after he asks for the umpteenth time, Sue says “You know, I hate the way you’re always pestering me about that.” Thoughtfully, Bob replies “Well, I guess I can see how you’d feel that way. If I stop pestering you, will you do it?”)

But I think that is one thing that hasn’t changed. Sure there is more effort to encourage dialogue on an individual level, but inevitably that dialogue leads to Bob pestering Sue. But to that end, is the pestering really the reason Sue keeps saying no?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Vatican II is brilliant in Ecumenical context. There is no other path but through dialogue with those capable. Regardless of belief, the idea is that we discuss these beliefs as rational adults while admitting we do not have a corner on the market of the objective truth, is a need. No one suggests its easy.

First it means admitting we may not have all the answers, which we obviously do not East or West.

I also agree that should the East/West unite then the mainline protestants come aboard immediately and the fringe aspects of Protestantism become more fringe.