Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity in Sight?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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

You, of course, would know better than I would being Episcopalian but it was the bold members of the communion that I was most referring to with my original statement. I also wondered what the union of the two Churches would mean for an Anglo-Catholic who already considers himself a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

God bless you

 

[miguel]

Rome’s obsession with legalism, centralized authority, questions of “validity,” and uniformity has done immense damage to the Church.

Thank you sir. Of course I feel compelled to comment on this particular tidbit. Authority comes from God. And unfortunately, since man is fallen, it is one of those things in life that is bound to offend. But where would we be without it? One could also say that the lack of due attention to questions of validity and the like has harmed the Church. Jesus prayed for unity among his followers so that the world would believe. I’m sure you’ve heard it all before.

 

[Harpazo]

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.

I’m sorry, but that is patently false. The Orthodox Church certainly does view St. Augustine as a Saint. Some refer to him as Blessed Augustine, but not in the Roman sense of ranks before being named “Saint.” This is akin to “Venerable” Bede. He’s still St. Bede, but many call him Venerable Bede.

There’s also a great book written by (soon to be Saint) Fr. Seraphim Rose. It’s called The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Give it a look over and you might be surprised.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[narrowpath]

A lot of Catholics I know seem to think that union is extremely close, maybe even just a few years. But most Orthodox I speak to think that it will not happen for a long, long time, maybe never. Why is that? It also seems to me like Catholics ‘gloss over’ more on the doctrinal differences (especially the Filioque).

For the record, I don’t see reunion happening any time soon. I think the EO/OO reunion will happen soon, though, and I think we have a better chance with the traditional Anglicans.

Saints Peter, Andrew, Mark, and Augustine of Canterbury, pray for us.

 

[narrowpath]

I’m sorry, but that is patently false. The Orthodox Church certainly does view St. Augustine as a Saint. Some refer to him as Blessed Augustine, but not in the Roman sense of ranks before being named “Saint.” This is akin to “Venerable” Bede. He’s still St. Bede, but many call him Venerable Bede.

There’s also a great book written by (soon to be Saint) Fr. Seraphim Rose. It’s called The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Give it a look over and you might be surprised.

In Christ,
Andrew

The Come receieve the Light podcast also did an episode on St. Augustine.

Three cheers for St. Seraphim Rose (as he is already called in Greece and the Balkans:thumbsup

 

[wynd]

A lot of Catholics I know seem to think that union is extremely close, maybe even just a few years. But most Orthodox I speak to think that it will not happen for a long, long time, maybe never. Why is that?

It also seems to me like Catholics ‘gloss over’ more on the doctrinal differences (especially the Filioque).

I think you answered your own question. As a rule, it seems that Catholics gloss over our differences which the Orthodox think are too important to gloss over.

 

[Mickey]

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.

Ss Peter and Paul.

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.

I see it completely opposite with Rome as the “doctrine- first” (sometimes developing) and Orthodoxy as organic.

Related to the above, Rome has clearly made significant steps toward unity, and is generally more ecumenical

There are different meanings to the word, “ecumenical”.

the Orthodox seem fatally prone to fighting over minor points and to stepping over the line between zeal for Orthodoxy and arrogance/hatred in the name of Christ.

That is an insulting accusation–not the type of thing you are generally known for on this forum.

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!)

I understand that you have strong opinions.

the Roman Communion has a more vigorous and convincing understanding of the Church over against the state and cultural/ethnic identity.

Holy Orthodoxy is united in Her common faith. The fact the Church is still searching for an explicit “American” identity does not compromise the truth.

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.

That’s fair. If all else was equal I could understanding choosing an identity you were more familiar with.

 

[Mickey]

Orthodox who regard him as an anti-Traditional quasi-heretic who is no more a doctor of the Church than Arius was

You are mistaken. Blessed Augustine is recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church.

 

[Mickey]

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.

Since you are on a roll, perhaps you should let loose with any other insults you have stored up.

 

[Contarini]

You, of course, would know better than I would being Episcopalian but it was the bold members of the communion that I was most referring to with my original statement. I also wondered what the union of the two Churches would mean for an Anglo-Catholic who already considers himself a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Exactly. What I think it ought to mean is “since the two elder branches are at one, we need to hurry up and join this unity.” And I think it would for many. But unfortunately the branch theory *can *have the effect of making the whole issue of unity seem less urgent.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thank you sir. Of course I feel compelled to comment on this particular tidbit. Authority comes from God. And unfortunately, since man is fallen, it is one of those things in life that is bound to offend. But where would we be without it? One could also say that the lack of due attention to questions of validity and the like has harmed the Church. Jesus prayed for unity among his followers so that the world would believe. I’m sure you’ve heard it all before.

Unity is not the thing I’m having problems with!
And I am describing attitudes and institutional structures and practices rather than official doctrines. The doctrine of papal infallibility is for me bound up with these problems, and it was proclaimed at the height of what I would see as Roman triumphalism. But the dogma *itself *can be interpreted in acceptable ways, if it can be separated from these endemic but not necessarily official attitudes. Cardinal Avery Dulles did good work on this. Many Catholic theologians of the past century have, including the present Pope. But one doesn’t convert to a theology.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

… thoughts on the article anyone?

I think it depends on how one defines ‘Unity’.

If unity means we will be one corporate whole, with divergent theologies, I’d say no. Holy Orthodoxy will not relativize it’s theology. Holy Orthodoxy will not concede regulatory powers to any office or See which may have a tendency to do so. The church never was some sort of conglomerate, it will never be some sort of conglomerate.

If unity means a strategic partnership of like-minded common believing churches then I would say “possible”, but it will require an enormous amount of patience. Not months, but years… perhaps many decades.

Unity can not mean just an agreement of the Latin church with the Orthodox, the non-Chalcedonians must be included. Unity can not mean just an agreement of the non-Chalcedonians with the Orthodox, the Latin church must be included. Without all three major communions working together in common Faith, we do not have unity.

When bishops of all three communions are able to concelebrate, and commemorate one another’s Patriarchs (when appropriate), we will have all the unity of the early church. We will be one communion in practice. The ‘key’ to that is a common confession of Faith, not a man.

So rather than ask “*** Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity in Sight?***”, why not ask " Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity of Faith in Sight?". If you can answer that, you can draw out a reasonable timeline.

I have doubts about seeing that possibility in my lifetime, but I am aging. Perhaps the younger people will have that joy in life.

 

[NoWings]

That is an insulting accusation–not the type of thing you are generally known for on this forum.

Sorry Mickey, but I’ve noticed the same tendencies from Orthodox types (at least on the net). Some Orthodox are almost as bad as Muslims about getting offended over the littlest things and the majority I’ve encountered seem to LOVE bringing up the fact that they’re not Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

Some Orthodox are almost as bad as Muslims…

And the insults just keepa comin.

 

[NoWings]

And the insults just keepa comin.

Mickey, really. If you’re going to quote me then do so in its entirety.

Moi:

Some Orthodox are almost as bad as Muslims about getting offended over the littlest things…

 

[Contarini]

Sorry Mickey, but I’ve noticed the same tendencies from Orthodox types (at least on the net). Some Orthodox are almost as bad as Muslims about getting offended over the littlest things

At the risk of really being insulting (by bringing up ethnicity instead of just religion), I do think that there’s a cultural connection here, and that’s something I should have recognized in my earlier post. Western Europeans (and North Americans) have, for both better and worse, largely let go of concepts of honor and communal pride (or at least have weakened them) which are part of traditional European culture and remain very much a part of both Eastern European and Middle Eastern culture.

Edwin

 

[VARC]

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 don’t think I would take it the same way. If Rome capitualtes and rescinds the requirement of papal supemacy and infallibility (which we all know isn’t going to happen) it would confirm what I alraedy believe: many church practices and beliefs are born out of the culture from which they came. That there is no “one true church”.

The RCC had a very fluid and gradual evolution that came about under the circumstances of Christianity in the chaotic western influnce. It would take a very long post to explain all of the historical circumstances surrounding the papacy and the Great Schism. Accepting that historical and sociological circumstances have affected the practices and beliefs of the chuch in a locality can also explain why the OO are not heretical monophysites but rather sincere Christians who who hold their own theolgical formulas of Christology. One can also very easliy look at the legitimacy of the Protestant churches and the Reformation.

To sum it up, I think such a situation would confirm Anglican branch theory in my mind. The church branches out over time with different liturgical and theological expressions due to historic and politcal reasons. Unfortunately, this ofeten leads to schism due to human pride but all are truly members of the Catholic Church.

I would be utterly shocked if the orthodox accepted the filioque and papal supremacy. I don’t know how I would react to that. But that will never happen.

 

[miguel]

Unity is not the thing I’m having problems with!
And I am describing attitudes and institutional structures and practices rather than official doctrines. The doctrine of papal infallibility is for me bound up with these problems, and it was proclaimed at the height of what I would see as Roman triumphalism. But the dogma *itself *can be interpreted in acceptable ways, if it can be separated from these endemic but not necessarily official attitudes. Cardinal Avery Dulles did good work on this. Many Catholic theologians of the past century have, including the present Pope. But one doesn’t convert to a theology.

Edwin

Triumphalism turns people off. We all have quirks that can turn people off. Again, that is the fallen condition we’re in. Love demands that we have sensitivity to the folks around us. It also demands that we try to have a thick skin and cut each other some slack. We have no control over the stupid attitudes of other people. But we can’t let those stupid attitudes keep us from where Jesus wants us to be. Otherwise the stupid attitudes win.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, really. If you’re going to quote me then do so in its entirety.

NoWings, really. Regrettably, I have had my moments of uncharity on this forum. But I have never, and would never tell someone, Catholic or protestant, that they sometimes step over the line between zeal for their faith and arrogance/hatred in the name of Christ. I find that extremely insulting and judgemental in any context.

Now, if you want to accuse the Orthodox of being too sensitive, like the Muslims (whatever that means), you are surely entitled to your subjective observations.

 

[NoWings]

NoWings, really. Regrettably, I have had my moments of uncharity on this forum. But I have never, and would never tell someone, Catholic or protestant, that they sometimes step over the line between zeal for their faith and arrogance/hatred in the name of Christ. I find that extremely insulting and judgemental in any context.

Okay… that’s great. I never said that. Contarini did. Take your issue up with him.