How Could EO and the CC reunite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taestron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
For one thing, the Orthodox do not believe there can be a Eucharist if there are no people during a Liturgy (nor can there be a Liturgy itself). The RC obviously does private Masses all the time.
Click to expand...
All interesting, but I noted your point about the Eucharist, in particular. This has come up before in sundry threads here, and as far as I know, the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite would observe the same: that is, no people = no Divine Liturgy. I know when I arrive first for a weekday DL (private intention), my priest will routinely joke that “we have a quorum”, meaning we can proceed with the celebration as at least one lay person is present.

That said, I tend to view the Catholic Church on the whole, and often find it challenging to see grave differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy if the Eastern Catholic Churches do tend to closely mirror their Orthodox counterparts. Widely disparate theologies could not exist side by side in the Catholic Communion without some meaningful theological reconciliation at some level. My logic could be flawed, but I keep coming back to this time and time again.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
All interesting, but I noted your point about the Eucharist, in particular. This has come up before in sundry threads here, and as far as I know, the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite would observe the same: that is, no people = no Divine Liturgy. I know when I arrive first for a weekday DL (private intention), my priest will routinely joke that “we have a quorum”, meaning we can proceed with the celebration as at least one lay person is present.

That said, I tend to view the Catholic Church on the whole, and often find it challenging to see grave differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy if the Eastern Catholic Churches do tend to closely mirror their Orthodox counterparts. Widely disparate theologies could not exist side by side in the Catholic Communion without some meaningful theological reconciliation at some level. My logic could be flawed, but I keep coming back to this time and time again.
Click to expand...
But the problem here is that the Eastern Catholic Churches already accept Rome as it is today, which the Orthodox do not. So not just because the ECs accept the differences in theology means the Orthodox would. There will always be those in Orthodoxy today who will not accept the Sacramental theology of the Roman Catholics as it is today.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But the problem here is that the Eastern Catholic Churches already accept Rome as it is today, which the Orthodox do not.
Click to expand...
But consider that from the other side - hasn’t Rome already accepted such as it relates to the Eastern Catholics? Is it the ECCs accepting Rome, or vice versa, or both?
 
  • The Pope admits he does not have universal jurisidiction
  • The Catholics cease the use of Filoque in the creed
  • Catholics accept the traditional orthodox viewpoints on divine light
  • The orthodox sort out their jurisdictions some would have to go under the vatican
These are the main issues I feel that prevent orthodox and catholics uniting. There are other things of course.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
All interesting, but I noted your point about the Eucharist, in particular. This has come up before in sundry threads here, and as far as I know, the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite would observe the same: that is, no people = no Divine Liturgy. I know when I arrive first for a weekday DL (private intention), my priest will routinely joke that “we have a quorum”, meaning we can proceed with the celebration as at least one lay person is present.

That said, I tend to view the Catholic Church on the whole, and often find it challenging to see grave differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy if the Eastern Catholic Churches do tend to closely mirror their Orthodox counterparts. Widely disparate theologies could not exist side by side in the Catholic Communion without some meaningful theological reconciliation at some level. My logic could be flawed, but I keep coming back to this time and time again.
Click to expand...
The logic is flawed on one point, you’re assuming that if it works on the Western side (i.e. that the differences in practice are acceptable to Rome) that it must work on the Eastern side. I have no doubt that modern Orthodox practice is completely compliant with post Vat II Catholicism, and if tomorrow we decided to just start commemorating the Pope, the schism would be over.
The real issues go the other way.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
But consider that from the other side - hasn’t Rome already accepted such as it relates to the Eastern Catholics? Is it the ECCs accepting Rome, or vice versa, or both?
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t Rome’s relationship with the ECC, it’s her relationship with the EOs. What the ECCs has accepted doesn’t mean the Orthodox would. Like I said, the ECC has accepted the Pope’s role as it is, even if they have their own apprehensions and disagreements, they still deem it worthy to be in communion with the Pope as the role is defined today. That is unacceptable to the Orthodox. So if it is okay with Rome that there is a difference in Sacramental theology between her and the East, and the ECs accept that there is a difference in Sacramental theology between them and Rome, that still has nothing to do with the Orthodox. What the ECs have accepted has no bearing on what they will accept or not.

For one thing, I do not think that the Orthodox will take lightly that the Catholic Church recognizes validity of the Eucharist among schismatics.
 
By focusing on common values and leaving any differences for a while;
Small steps like recognizing each others saints; consideration for various writings and prayers; reunions with a positive agenda; monasteries with monks from both churches; etc. Maybe, later on, the differences will look different… The fact that there are differences doesn’t mean somebody has to be bad…
 
Ion said:
By focusing on common values and leaving any differences for a while;
Small steps like recognizing each others saints; consideration for various writings and prayers; reunions with a positive agenda; monasteries with monks from both churches; etc. Maybe, later on, the differences will look different… The fact that there are differences doesn’t mean somebody has to be bad…
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is the case. The Orthodox hasn’t taken light on a lot of post-schism RC dogma and theology. It’s not merely being different, it is believing that one is heterodox, and therefore cannot be orthodox until the heterodox beliefs are abandoned completely.

This is like saying, we can come into communion with Lutherans without asking them to abandon their belief in consubstantiation. The Catholic Church won’t do that.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Unfortunately that is the case. The Orthodox hasn’t taken light on a lot of post-schism RC dogma and theology. It’s not merely being different, it is believing that one is heterodox, and therefore cannot be orthodox until the heterodox beliefs are abandoned completely.

This is like saying, we can come into communion with Lutherans without asking them to abandon their belief in consubstantiation. The Catholic Church won’t do that.
Click to expand...
How about you list these post-schism dogmas? Because recent Popes don’t seem to speak the way you do–even the very polemical Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 basically says that the Orthodox just have to abandon their schism.

The objection to post-schism Catholic dogmas is on the Orthodox side. That is to say, the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with the Orthodox going on believing exactly what they believe now about the spotless purity of the Mother of God and her Dormition; and it certainly has no problem with them continuing to say the Creed without the Filioque.

Edwin
 
I really have no idea how the schism will end and whether or not it ever will end. I sincerely hope that it does some day end but I don’t expect to see that during my life time. Still, you never know.
 
ConstantineTG said:
This is like saying, we can come into communion with Lutherans without asking them to abandon their belief in consubstantiation. The Catholic Church won’t do that.
Click to expand...
The good news is that we Lutherans completely reject consubstantiation!

Luther said " … we do not make Christ’s body out of the bread … Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread (i.e. impanation).
We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, “This is my body.” For Christ commands us to say not, “Let this become my body,” or, “Make my body there,” but, “This is my body.”

The issue is that we Lutherans reject clever descriptions of any sort of process of transformation as ultimately too crude. We are content to leave this as a mystery of faith.
 
Contarini said:
How about you list these post-schism dogmas? Because recent Popes don’t seem to speak the way you do–even the very polemical Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 basically says that the Orthodox just have to abandon their schism.

The objection to post-schism Catholic dogmas is on the Orthodox side. That is to say, the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with the Orthodox going on believing exactly what they believe now about the spotless purity of the Mother of God and her Dormition; and it certainly has no problem with them continuing to say the Creed without the Filioque.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Yes, abandon the schism and believe with full assent all de fide dogmas which have been pronounced since the first millennium, such as the Filioque (even though we would not be required to say it), Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, the Tridentine definition of original sin, indulgences, and the Tridentine Creed, just to name a few. That is what abandoning the schism means in the lingo of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Yes, abandon the schism and believe with full assent all de fide dogmas which have been pronounced since the first millennium, such as the Filioque (even though we would not be required to say it), Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, the Tridentine definition of original sin, indulgences, and the Tridentine Creed, just to name a few. That is what abandoning the schism means in the lingo of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...
Right, but the point is that from the Catholic point of view your current doctrines are compatible with these teachings, with the possible exception of papal infallibility.

In other words–whether that’s the point of view of the CE or not–from the point of view of recent Popes it’s pretty clear that the Orthodox simply need to abandon the claim that the Western developments in these regards contradict the Tradition.

Edwin
 
This will only happen when the Lord wills and causes it to happen. It does not keep me up at night. 😉
 
benjohnson said:
The issue is that we Lutherans reject clever descriptions of any sort of process of transformation as ultimately too crude. We are content to leave this as a mystery of faith.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a very orthodox approach!
 
Contarini said:
Right, but the point is that from the Catholic point of view your current doctrines are compatible with these teachings, with the possible exception of papal infallibility.

In other words–whether that’s the point of view of the CE or not–from the point of view of recent Popes it’s pretty clear that the Orthodox simply need to abandon the claim that the Western developments in these regards contradict the Tradition.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I doubt this oft-made claim here at CAF. I’m pretty sure that contraception and divorce are intolerable to the CC. Just because the Church remains silent on some matters because she has chosen out of prudence to prioritize other more pressing matters in certain circumstances doesn’t necessarily mean that those are “compatible” with her teachings.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Is it your understanding that such are freely tolerated in Orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
I know they are not freely accessible, that’s not the point. But they are tolerated in circumstances that the CC teaches they cannot be so tolerated. How “hard” or “easy” they make it does not take away from the fact they are tolerated in circumstances where the CC teaches that they can never be, by Divine Law.
 
Marybeloved said:
I know they are not freely accessible, that’s not the point. But they are tolerated in circumstances that the CC teaches they cannot be so tolerated. How “hard” or “easy” they make it does not take away from the fact they are tolerated in circumstances where the CC teaches that they can never be, by Divine Law.
Click to expand...
They are tolerated in the Catholic Church as well.

We just don’t have the same penchant for loopholes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top