If you want the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians to truly unite...

[followingtheway]

How will they repair doctrinal differences and liturgical differences? Who and how will we decide what to believe within regards to the Filioque, Sin and Death in regards to Mary, the afterlife, which post-schism saints to venerate, priests and marriage, and so on and so on?

 

[TarkanAttila]

If I am to understand correctly, I think the Dormition of Mary is not such a big gap as you think. The Vatican has never explicitly stated that Mary had to have never died in her Assumption; in fact, IIRC, one Papal encyclical seems to have implied, slightly, that she did suffer mortal death - BUT we have no reason to believe she suffered bodily corruption.

Also, if I’ve understood what I’ve heard correctly, sin is really only a difference in metaphor.

In the Latin metaphor, we say Adam received original sin.
In the Eastern metaphor, we say Adam lost his saving grace.
In the Latin, we say baptism removes original sin.
In the Eastern, we say baptism gives us saving grace.
In the Latin, we say Mary was without original sin.
In the Eastern, she was (as the Book says) “full of grace”.

It sounds more like word dissonance to me than anything.

The Eastern Catholic churches are testimony to the fact that Eastern liturgies are valid. (Indeed, any liturgy approved by the Church is a valid liturgy as long as it can be competently practised). The liturgies that would have to be hammered out would mainly be anything written after 1054 AD. I know the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI were written after then, as was the Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon (used mainly by some Western Rite Orthodox). Any others?

 

[Julia_Mae]

How will they repair doctrinal differences and liturgical differences?

I think the only unresolvable issue is Papal Supremacy. And I can’t imagine either side budging.

 

[Nine_Two]

Pre Vat I Catholicism I would consider a case where unity was possible if the two sides just sat down together. I don’t see that possibility anymore.

 

[ZDHayden]

First, there need not be any liturgical compromise – such would harm rather than help the Faith.

Second, the meaning of both the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception would have to be discussed so both sides understand the other on those issues. An Orthodox priest once told me that the word Filioque itself is not incorrect in the context of the Creed, but how it is understood by Rome commonly is.

Third, neither side will budge on Papal infalibility until the Bishop of Rome allows the powers of his office to come under review in order to facilitate an honest exploration into the origins and extents of his office’s powers.

Just my two cents.

 

[Yerusalyim]

How will they repair doctrinal differences and liturgical differences? Who and how will we decide what to believe within regards to the Filioque, Sin and Death in regards to Mary, the afterlife, which post-schism saints to venerate, priests and marriage, and so on and so on?

priests and marriage is NOT an issue. Several Rites of the Catholic Church have married priests…and the Latin Rite could allow it at any time…or not. The difference you mention are significant…but not insurmountable.

 

[ZDHayden]

How will they repair doctrinal differences and liturgical differences? Who and how will we decide what to believe within regards to the Filioque, Sin and Death in regards to Mary, the afterlife, which post-schism saints to venerate, priests and marriage, and so on and so on?

I just thought of an additional few thingamabobs . . . sorry, I just woke up, my vocabulary plugin does not work for another hour or so .

Re: the afterlife. Why should there be any dogma concerning the afterlife in its specifics at all? Remember the Four Last Things, and that should be enough. We will know for certain soon enough.

Re: saints. Some Western saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi are at least greatly reapected by quite a few Orthodox Christians. Eastern Catholics have a greater exposure to the Orthodox saintsnthan Roman Catholics, so their (name removed by moderator)ut would be valuable. I think if the post-union Church were to adopt the Orthodox method of canonization rather than the Roman, this issue would resolve itself on its own in time.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

First, there need not be any liturgical compromise – such would harm rather than help the Faith.

Second, the meaning of both the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception would have to be discussed so both sides understand the other on those issues. An Orthodox priest once told me that the word Filioque itself is not incorrect in the context of the Creed, but how it is understood by Rome commonly is.

Third, neither side will budge on Papal infalibility until the Bishop of Rome allows the powers of his office to come under review in order to facilitate an honest exploration into the origins and extents of his office’s powers.

Just my two cents.

The Catholic Church has stated on more than one occasion that its interpretation of the filioque can fit into Orthodox theology and answered all the supposed objections about “dual origins” that the Orthodox Church has expressed. At this point shouldn’t you give the Catholics the benefit of the doubt that they’re not lying?

With regards to Papal Infallibility, that to me seems to be like the easiest issue to resolve. The Pope would allow for some kind of reduction in his power, but will the Orthodox accept anything but “absolute parity” between all the patriarchs?

 

[Hesychios]

Pre Vat I Catholicism I would consider a case where unity was possible if the two sides just sat down together. I don’t see that possibility anymore.

This is exactly how I see it.

I do not think that we ‘believe the same things, just describe them defferently’ in all other issues, but we are close in many ways. The Latin council of 1870 pretty much locked out any possibility of reconciliation.

I think, borrowing the expression of Patriarch Bartholomew, that our two churches have become ontologically different.

 

[manualman]

I think the key will be bad old fashioned suffering and persecution. As long as we debate the issue at our desks in climate conditioned comfort we will never resolve the problems.

When substantial numbers of us are in shackles in some dank dungeon somewhere, we’ll finally reach the point of putting pride aside and burying the hatchet. But I suspect not sooner.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic Church has stated on more than one occasion that its interpretation of the filioque can fit into Orthodox theology and answered all the supposed objections about “dual origins” that the Orthodox Church has expressed. At this point shouldn’t you give the Catholics the benefit of the doubt that they’re not lying?

Basically, every discussion on the filioque goes the same way: the Son is said not to be a cause but also a cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit. It’s suspicious from the Orthodox perspective.

With regards to Papal Infallibility, that to me seems to be like the easiest issue to resolve. The Pope would allow for some kind of reduction in his power, but will the Orthodox accept anything but “absolute parity” between all the patriarchs?

Infallibility is the proverbial elephant in the room. How can the papacy give away its power, when that power had been infallibly proclaimed? The Catholic view of doctrinal infallibility (to be fair, the Orthodox fall into this trap at times too) is a huge impediment to reunion because in the Catholic mindset, any council which fits certain criteria is automatically infallible, so we have to deal not only with the infallibility of Vatican I but also with the infallibility of the councils of Florence and Lyons, rather than regard them simply as failed union agreements brought about under political duress.

 

[Marybeloved]

People, some misleading explanations have been offered here.

The son (per CC) is not the source/origin of the Holy Spirit, but merely a second cause because there’s afterall, just one essence- The Son does not have his own essence, different from the Father’s, so he cannot “originate” anything at all in the Blessed Trinity. Whatever he gives to the Holy Spirit, he necessarily gets from the Father. So one source for everything in God is proclaimed unflinchingly by the CC- Just one.

For those who have not frequented the Eastern Forum, look for the thread titled Filioque-Distinguishing the essence and person of the Holy Spirit, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=619526
Many helpful explanations have been offered there.

The best summary is that the Trinity is like a spring-river-sea, where there’s only one source/origin (the spring)- and the sea (Holy Spirit) has two causes, because its water comes to it from the River even though the river gets it from the spring- One source/origin, two causes, three bodies. The Sea is caused both by the Spring and the River, without either of which it would not be- That’s the meaning of cause. That’s the best explanation I’ve ever found: Spring-River-Sea (And it’s patristic!). So the Son is cause of the Holy Spirit in the way the River is cause of the Sea, but not in the way that the source of the water (Spring) is.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

GENERAL WARNING
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.