1
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
The Archbishop is very optimistic. Personally, I see many more barriers to reunion than he does. But then again…
With God, all things are possible.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Wow, that’s some optimism! Within a few months? That would be wonderful!
P
Paul2274
Guest
This would be amazing. I pray that it does happen. We need both lungs to live and breath fully with the Holy Spirit.
My only question would be if this happens… Where will the seat of authority be, and who will be seated there?? One Pope?? Two?? How is the next Pope elected??
Ok that was 3 …well actually 4 questions
Paul
My only question would be if this happens… Where will the seat of authority be, and who will be seated there?? One Pope?? Two?? How is the next Pope elected??
Ok that was 3 …well actually 4 questions
Paul
J
John_Larocque
Guest
Unless the Vatican has quietly made some concessions (that they haven’t made public) I think this prelate is being naive. Don’t get me wrong - I am optimistic that the Moscow Patriarchate and the Vatican will have improved relations under Kirill and Benedict. I also think this upcoming conference on the role of the see of Rome will be a step forward. But unity in a matter of months?
Frankly, I’d rather hear from a source who is actually closer to the Vatican. Does “Inside the Vatican” have any kind of take on this?
Frankly, I’d rather hear from a source who is actually closer to the Vatican. Does “Inside the Vatican” have any kind of take on this?
N
NoWings
Guest
Hmm…
Me no believe um.
I’d roll on the ground laughing if it wasn’t so sad. It’ll never happen.
D
dzheremi
Guest
No, unity is not in sight, unfortunately.
C
Contarini
Guest
That seems rather unbelievably optimistic.
But admittedly, I find within myself (wickedly) personal reasons for being almost afraid of the prospect, since I have frequently said on these forums and elsewhere that I would be obliged to convert to Catholicism if Catholic/Orthodox unity ever became a reality.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
As a side note: Why would you convert if the two Churches united—yet remain Episcopalian rather than Catholic or Orthodox?
C
Contarini
Guest
Because as it stands the “vote” of historic, apostolic Christianity is split. There are two plausible claimants. I find the Roman Communion to be distinctly the stronger claimant of the two if it comes to that. But it doesn’t come to that. As an Anglican, I also have some claim to continuity with the historic Church. Our objections to Roman supremacy as exercised in the past millennium are pretty much identical to those of the Orthodox. If Rome and the Orthodox were to be reunited, we Anglicans would no longer have a leg to stand on. We would be obligated to seek reunion instantly, and any Anglicans who did not do so would no longer have any legitimate claim to Catholicity.
Edwin
M
miguel
Guest
I hope I don’t offend you here. I think your moral arguements are downright Catholic. Even if unity doesn’t occur, if there are two plausible claimants why stay in one that isn’t?
M
Mickey
Guest
Then I must ask why you “find the Roman Communion to be distictly the stronger claimant of the two”.
And then I must reiterate miguel’s question.
W
wynd
Guest
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”Then I must ask why you “find the Roman Communion to be distictly the stronger claimant of the two”.
And then I must reiterate miguel’s question.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I just wonder how many within the Anglican communion feel the same way.
God bless you
C
Contarini
Guest
Then I must ask why you “find the Roman Communion to be distictly the stronger claimant of the two”.
- Rome clearly had primacy in the early Church, and it seems to me that early Christians linked this to Peter and Paul and not just to Rome’s political/social status.
- The theology of the Roman Communion, for all its flaws (the “legalism” of Western theology, etc.), is rooted in an understanding of the Church as an organic, unified body which is more incarnational than the doctrine-first approach of the Orthodox. This is a vague statement and it would take a book to flesh it out.
- Related to the above, Rome has clearly made significant steps toward unity, and is generally more ecumenical (these days at least), while the Orthodox seem fatally prone to fighting over minor points and to stepping over the line between zeal for [O]rthodoxy and arrogance/hatred in the name of Christ. (You can certainly find plenty of this among RCs, and for that matter among Protestants. My judgment that it’s more endemic and intrinsic to Orthodoxy as a separate Communion is a highly dubious and subjective one. But you asked, so I told you!)
- Orthodoxy is culture-bound to a degree that the Roman Communion is not, and (see no. 2 again) the Roman Communion has a more vigorous and convincing understanding of the Church over against the state and cultural/ethnic identity.
- Finally, I am a Western Christian. That isn’t an argument for the truth of Catholicism against Orthodoxy, but it’s a reason why if all things else were equal and I had to do one or the other, I’d become Catholic rather than Orthodox.
Because over against the points I listed above, there are a lot of points where the Orthodox have a stronger case. Their understanding of how the Church reaches decisions is superior to that of the Roman Communion of the past few centuries. Rome’s obsession with legalism, centralized authority, questions of “validity,” and uniformity has done immense damage to the Church. Rome has made valiant efforts to deal with many of these problems in recent decades (see my pro-Roman points above!), but as long as the saner and more moderate among the Orthodox are not convinced (I recognize that there will always be Orthodox monks hoisting black flags and anathematizing Rome), I think the rest of us have good reason to hold aloof as well. For all our faults, we Anglicans have struggled/are struggling toward an authentically patristic, conciliar way of reaching decisions based on communion rather than on quasi-imperial structures of power. Rome would have to show institutionally (not just in wonderful theological statements by prominent theologians, including the Pope) that it was also committed to the full recovery of the historic Catholic understanding of the Church as communion. Union with the Orthodox (even with a significant portion of the Orthodox) would demonstrate this and deprive us of further reason for separation.
Furthermore, while the Reformation was a disaster in many ways, the Protestants *did *have valid insights, and another strength of Anglicanism is the way we have struggled to incorporate those insights into the historic Catholic Faith. We have by no means been successful in this. It would be wonderful to be able to continue this process in communion with Rome. And again, if Rome can reunite with the Orthodox that will be a clear indication that there is enough room in the Roman Communion for the positive aspects of Protestantism.
I can certainly imagine circumstances in which I might unite with Rome anyway. But union with the Orthodox would compel me to take that step.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m sure I’m not alone, though I haven’t encountered many who would put it quite as bluntly and unequivocally. I think that if Rome and Constantinople (or even Moscow or Alexandria) reunited it would make a lot of Anglicans rethink their position. Others wouldn’t care, admittedly. The liberals wouldn’t–the really low-church folks wouldn’t. And unfortunately a lot of Anglo-Catholics seem pretty happy with their claims to Catholicity even apart from unity. But I think it would make a real difference.
Edwin
I have said this, too, Edwin, even though many Lutherans might not, and even though Lutheran circumstances may be different than Anglican to some degree. For me, it would be an undeniable, movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church.
Jon
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Hell will freeze over before Catholic & Orthodox are at one again.
Now I had better read the article. Thank you for posting the link.Having read it - same answer, only more so. With the addition that an awful lot of intractable stuff on which neither will budge an inch is - of course !!! - ignored. For instance, how is Rome’s estimate of St.Augustine, as a Saint, Doctor of the Church, & orthodox Catholic, to be reconciled with view of those Orthodox who regard him as an anti-Traditional quasi-heretic who is no more a doctor of the Church than Arius was ? Squares can’t be fitted into circles; and the sooner those who fantasise in this silly way face nasty hard reality, the better for us all.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
ItV will probably trot out Archbishop (as he now is) Hilarion Alfeyev, who will cut his usual ecumenical capers with all the agility (and predictability) of a performing monkey. No change there then.
ItV is worth reading, definitely - but it is so predictable.
Read enough of them, & you can write the next dozen without trouble. If ItV would only get in some other Orthodox to represent a less rosy perspective on all these Orthodox-Papal argy-bargy, it would be a much better magazine. As it is, one could be forgiving for disbelieving in the existence of “hawks” such as Father John Romanides, the monks of Mt. Athos, & and other loathers of Rome. That Rome has its own attack-dogs who rend in pieces all things Orthodox is also left unsaid.- Status