No impediments remain to full communion, Pope tells Orthodox Patriarch [CWN]

[chimo]

I would be careful before i say that God wishes unity of Rome and the Orthodox. We cant know that for sure. As an Orthodox Christian, it makes me wonder why did God celebrate all those latest saints, who condemned ecumenism, and plus, for example, their bodies turned out in to the non-corrupted relics. That is God’s work.
For example, saint metropolitan Philaret (ROCOR), who’s relics are blessed even with myyrh leaking threatened with anathema anyone who practices ecumenism. And that was in 1980s. So it is confusing.

“Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!”

And i think he gathered a Council of ROCOR to proclaim this anathema, and his passed away body is now myyrh leaking. So it makes you think.

So what are you saying that the Catholic Church is in heresy? Where than does the Catholic Church receive her saints from? Certainly God is with them. There are quite a number of Catholic saints who have just been canonized. Perhaps we need to listen to her saints as well.

 

[Vaseljen]

So what are you saying that the Catholic Church is in heresy? Where than does the Catholic Church receive her saints from? Certainly God is with them. There are quite a number of Catholic saints who have just been canonized. Perhaps we need to listen to her saints as well.

I said it is confusing, i didn’t say i know the answer.
Don’t want to be a party breaker or something, but we have been telling each-other to be in heresy for the last 1000 years. If we stop with that, we just denied the 1000 years and more of our history, both the groups. LOL

 

[chimo]

I said it is confusing, i didn’t say i know the answer.
Don’t want to be a party breaker or something, but we have been telling each-other to be in heresy for the last 1000 years. If we stop with that, we just denied the 1000 years and more of our history, both the groups. LOL

Well don’t you think when a feud is running in a family that somebody needs to step in to change it. Why continue it? Gosh doesn’t Jesus Christ mean anything to these same people who want to continue it (the feud) or will they finally admit that Jesus is more important than any Church. Perhaps we were looking too much at the Church rather than the One who created it. I for one see in the Church of Rome the same as I see in the Eastern Church. Now that does not mean I am going to change everything. No one is going to listen to someone like me. I am perhaps the most well known unknown person on the planet. I am not going to change people. But I can change the way I think. I can change myself. That takes guts because it is in this change that I sense God is looking forward so that this insidious feud will end. The Church of Rome is not in heresy and neither are we. We need to acknowledge that so that God will be able to work in us to see it through.

 

[Vaseljen]

Well don’t you think when a feud is running in a family that somebody needs to step in to change it. Why continue it? Gosh doesn’t Jesus Christ mean anything to these same people who want to continue it (the feud) or will they finally admit that Jesus is more important than any Church. Perhaps we were looking too much at the Church rather than the One who created it. I for one see in the Church of Rome the same as I see in the Eastern Church. Now that does not mean I am going to change everything. No one is going to listen to someone like me. I am perhaps the most well known unknown person on the planet. I am not going to change people. But I can change the way I think. I can change myself. That takes guts because it is in this change that I sense God is looking forward so that this insidious feud will end. The Church of Rome is not in heresy and neither are we. We need to acknowledge that so that God will be able to work in us to see it through.

If you believe that both of these Churches are equally true, then you put yourself outside the both Churches because there is no such Church you believe in.

 

[Art321]

I said it is confusing, i didn’t say i know the answer.
Don’t want to be a party breaker or something, but we have been telling each-other to be in heresy for the last 1000 years. If we stop with that, we just denied the 1000 years and more of our history, both the groups. LOL

From my limited readings, I do know that the Eastern Churches do view Rome and its views as heresy, and not to mention that many of our brethren in the East do seem to think so too.

youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A

This video was one that I watched in which our Eastern Brethren ordained a Latin Priest into one of their Churches, yet I admit that they continually throughout the ceremony really stressed the “heresy” of our beliefs…

I’m sorry, but I side with Rome. I do believe that our Eastern Brethren are NOT in heresy as it is Rome’s view as well, and many of our differences are based on our different approaches to our theology. They are very similar, but different enough to see things from a different point of view.

Also in regards to what Eastern Saints said about the “Roman Heresy”, you do know that their sayings were and are not infallible, right?

 

[Art321]

I agree with you that it was fundamentally political, but the schism actually occurred two centuries before the sack of Constantinople. The latter was a complicated business, with enough fault for everybody involved to take a share.

Right now, though, I would say the greatest impediment to reunion is the Patriarchate of Moscow, whose adherents are far and away the greatest number of at least nominal Orthodox worldwide.

Yes, I do know that. I was saying that the sacking of Constantinople was the nail to the coffin, so to speak. Even with the excommunication of both Churches wasn’t enough for both West and East to stop viewing each other in the laity as different communions until this particular event.

 

[Art321]

One cannot mention the sack of Constantinople and its dominion for decades by the Latins without mentioning the Massacre of the Latins by the Orthodox a couple of decades before.

The more I study about the Great Schism, the more I’m convinced that it was due, first and foremost, to mutual jealousy and envy and ambition. Theological differences, though no difference of faith, were mere window dressing for petty motivations.

Pax Christi

Yes, I do believe that this is something that I can agree with though I’m not entirely caught up in the historical events regarding the schism. There is enough blame to go on for both sides.

 

[Art321]

Though I could not find Benedict’s statement, at least he’s realistically acknowledging that the only doctrine impeding full communion between Catholics and Eastern orthodox are the** privileges of the pope over collegiality and synodality (the form of governance in the East, including, at the local level, the Catholic East). **

The fact of the matter is that, starting in the Late Middle Age, **the pope became rather imperial (red shoes was an exclusive privilege of the Byzantine emperors), going beyond, in degree, the historical role exercised by the patriarch of Rome. **

I think that the bulk of the impediments could be dealt with in canon law, but there’d still remain a few that the Catholic Church would have to tread carefully, for they might brush with doctrine.

Given that the Catholic Church moves ever so slowly and the Eastern Orthodox Churches move even more slowly, save a miracle, it won’t be until a few centuries when the Church is one again, regrettably.

Pax Christi

1. Exactly how would this work? And what do you mean by the Catholic East? I’ve heard this saying that Rome would have set up governance of the Latin Church using the similar model of national churches like in the East if the Eastern Churches came back into the fold. I have my doubts about this as from my knowledge this has never happened with the Latin Church in all its history. I don’t think how the Latin Church governs her people should be up for debate at all.

Also I have heard that many of our Eastern Brethren don’t like the Latin Church in the east and I still don’t seem to understand as to why?? The Eastern Churches have expanded west and Rome hasn’t said anything negative about it. And from my knowledge, most of the Catholic East is based in the far east where there is little numbers of our Eastern Brethren. Hypothetically, let’s say that the Church of Rome manages to convert the vast peoples of India and China. Would our Eastern Orthodox truly feel upset that the Latins are in the East?? The Latin Church did start in the west and identified for many years as the Western Church, and while it remains so, it is not as western in the present age as her people are found literally throughout the world.

1. Yes, I do know and recognize this. The Popes of the Middle Ages truly let power go to their heads and as such overstepped their power as the Bishops of Rome. It truly is sad, when they had such influence they could have used such opportunities to do such good and only to waste it. Of course, I don’t believe that every single Pope from these era did such things, but we certainly have our fair share.
2. What exactly are you proposing? As it has been stated as doctrine, the Bishops of Rome will and cannot change the doctrines of the Church, because to do otherwise would mean that she truly fell astray as the many of our Eastern Brethren seem to suggest. I have heard that Pope Francis and even Pope Benedict talked about the decentralization of the Papacy if the schism were to end. I personally didn’t and still don’t see a problem with such a move as it still wouldn’t mean that the doctrine of the papacy is wrong. Yet there is a difference between setting up national Latin churches and simply giving more responsibly to the Bishops of the world.

 

[Vaseljen]

From my limited readings, I do know that the Eastern Churches do view Rome and its views as heresy, and not to mention that many of our brethren in the East do seem to think so too.

youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A

This video was one that I watched in which our Eastern Brethren ordained a Latin Priest into one of their Churches, yet I admit that they continually throughout the ceremony really stressed the “heresy” of our beliefs…

I’m sorry, but I side with Rome. I do believe that our Eastern Brethren are NOT in heresy as it is Rome’s view as well, and many of our differences are based on our different approaches to our theology. They are very similar, but different enough to see things from a different point of view.

Also in regards to what Eastern Saints said about the “Roman Heresy”, you do know that their sayings were and are not infallible, right?

Actually Orthodox still believe that Rome is in heresy. When Orthodox bishop is ordained, he reads a special document which is his oath that he will fight against “Latin heresy”. And this document is part of very long tradition, but i don’t know when did they start with such practice.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I do know that. I was saying that the sacking of Constantinople was the nail to the coffin, so to speak. Even with the excommunication of both Churches wasn’t enough for both West and East to stop viewing each other in the laity as different communions until this particular event.

I’ll agree with you in part, at least. I do think the sack of Constantinople was, and still is, a psychological barrier. But the schism was already complete prior to the sack. Indeed, one of the promises made by the son of the deposed Emperor of Byzantium to the Crusaders if they would retake Constantinople for his father, was reunification.

Ultimately, the Crusaders took the deal, went to Constantinople, put Isaac Angelus back on the throne. But the “price” was unacceptable to the Byzantines and they deposed Angelus again and closed the gates of the city against the Franks, reasonably believing a city of a million people could defend its famous walls against 8,000 Franks. The Greeks then made a terrible decision to reopen the gates to attack the Franks outside the city and the rest is history.

It should not be thought that I am whitewashing the Franks with this. They went along willingly with the wily Venetian Doge, Enrico Dandolo, who really seems to have had both revenge and greed in mind. He was blinded or partially blinded earlier by the Byzantines during the massacre of the Italians in Constantinople, and undoubtedly wanted revenge. But he was also a very greedy man, and undoubtedly had riches in mind as well as seizure of Byzantine islands in the Aegean.

But it’s not the only source of resentment. After the Greeks ousted the Franks, the Ottoman threat loomed a couple of centuries later. The Greeks asked for aid from the West. Hungary responded and met disasterous defeat at the hands of the Turks. The rest of the west did not respond after that. The Ottoman force numbered 200,000 and breached the walls with cannon. Some Orthodox today express resentment that the west did not save Constantinople. Perhaps the Latins could have saved Constantinople, and perhaps not.

 

[Augustine]

1. Exactly how would this work? And what do you mean by the Catholic East? I’ve heard this saying that Rome would have set up governance of the Latin Church using the similar model of national churches like in the East if the Eastern Churches came back into the fold. I have my doubts about this as from my knowledge this has never happened with the Latin Church in all its history. I don’t think how the Latin Church governs her people should be up for debate at all.

Be as it may, the Eastern Catholic Churches were deprived of their self governance, which is patriarchal and synodal, though they are canonically considered self governing (sui juris). How the Latin Church wants to govern itself is up to her, but she imposes her mode of governance on the Eastern Catholic Churches, though hypocritically submitting their patriarchs under a mere cardinal (that of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches).

Also I have heard that many of our Eastern Brethren don’t like the Latin Church in the east and I still don’t seem to understand as to why?? The Eastern Churches have expanded west and Rome hasn’t said anything negative about it. And from my knowledge, most of the Catholic East is based in the far east where there is little numbers of our Eastern Brethren. Hypothetically, let’s say that the Church of Rome manages to convert the vast peoples of India and China. Would our Eastern Orthodox truly feel upset that the Latins are in the East?? The Latin Church did start in the west and identified for many years as the Western Church, and while it remains so, it is not as western in the present age as her people are found literally throughout the world.

The Orthodox do not appreciate the formerly called uniate Churches because they break communion with their patriarchs to be under the patriarch of Rome. It wounds both sides.

1. What exactly are you proposing? As it has been stated as doctrine, the Bishops of Rome will and cannot change the doctrines of the Church, because to do otherwise would mean that she truly fell astray as the many of our Eastern Brethren seem to suggest. I have heard that Pope Francis and even Pope Benedict talked about the decentralization of the Papacy if the schism were to end. I personally didn’t and still don’t see a problem with such a move as it still wouldn’t mean that the doctrine of the papacy is wrong. Yet there is a difference between setting up national Latin churches and simply giving more responsibly to the Bishops of the world.

It’s complicated.
Paul VI:

We are ourselves the gravest obstacle to the restoration of unity.

St. John Paul II:

The central problem lies in the nature of that full communion we are seeking with each other and the role that the bishop of Rome has to play.

If even great popes recognize this issue, to my knowledge, none of them have forwarded concrete steps.

I think that the first order of the day is that both the Orthodox and the Catholics need to recognize the Church in each other. The Catholics do, but the Orthodox do not. The second order, which would follow, is to recognize each other’s sacraments as valid. With these points out of the way, only then can other impediments to union be resolved.

I think that this is a very good summation of the situation, by Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP: bit.ly/1m2DbuT

Pax Christi

 

[PatrickC]

Even if my own Antiochian Church reunited with Rome (which I don’t believe will ever happen)if papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, or even the concept of indulgences remained, I couldn’t in good conscience follow.

 

[Art321]

I’ll agree with you in part, at least. I do think the sack of Constantinople was, and still is, a psychological barrier. But the schism was already complete prior to the sack. Indeed, one of the promises made by the son of the deposed Emperor of Byzantium to the Crusaders if they would retake Constantinople for his father, was reunification.

Ultimately, the Crusaders took the deal, went to Constantinople, put Isaac Angelus back on the throne. But the “price” was unacceptable to the Byzantines and they deposed Angelus again and closed the gates of the city against the Franks, reasonably believing a city of a million people could defend its famous walls against 8,000 Franks. The Greeks then made a terrible decision to reopen the gates to attack the Franks outside the city and the rest is history.

It should not be thought that I am whitewashing the Franks with this. They went along willingly with the wily Venetian Doge, Enrico Dandolo, who really seems to have had both revenge and greed in mind. He was blinded or partially blinded earlier by the Byzantines during the massacre of the Italians in Constantinople, and undoubtedly wanted revenge. But he was also a very greedy man, and undoubtedly had riches in mind as well as seizure of Byzantine islands in the Aegean.

But it’s not the only source of resentment. After the Greeks ousted the Franks, the Ottoman threat loomed a couple of centuries later. The Greeks asked for aid from the West. Hungary responded and met disasterous defeat at the hands of the Turks. The rest of the west did not respond after that. The Ottoman force numbered 200,000 and breached the walls with cannon. Some Orthodox today express resentment that the west did not save Constantinople. Perhaps the Latins could have saved Constantinople, and perhaps not.

Yes, I see. Thank you for answering this. It would seem that you know far more than me at this point. We can agree that there are faults on both sides. Please if you have the time, what is your point of view in regards to the questions that I asked Augustine.

 

[Art321]

Be as it may, the Eastern Catholic Churches were deprived of their self governance, which is patriarchal and synodal, though they are canonically considered self governing (sui juris). How the Latin Church wants to govern itself is up to her, but she imposes her mode of governance on the Eastern Catholic Churches, though hypocritically submitting their patriarchs under a mere cardinal (that of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches).

First, my apologies for my late response and thank you. I wanted to get that idea of the Latin Church’s own self governance out of the way as it would seem that our Eastern Brethrens’ position is if the reunion occurred, the Latins would have to set up national churches and we can agree that is not likely to happen.

I do agree with you that this is not right in regards to the Eastern Catholic Churches. I do believe in good faith we must never impose our methods of governance on this sui juris churches.

The Orthodox do not appreciate the formerly called uniate Churches because they break communion with their patriarchs to be under the patriarch of Rome. It wounds both sides.

I suppose looking at it from their point of view it really does make sense as to why they would be upset. Yet, it goes to show that there are Eastern Christians who do seem to agree with us on the role of the successor of St. Peter in the overall Catholic Church.

It’s complicated.

Please if you have the time, I’m more than willing to discuss these complex issues. I may not know all the complexities of these situation, yet I do wish to learn and discuss this.

If even great popes recognize this issue, to my knowledge, none of them have forwarded concrete steps.

I think that the first order of the day is that both the Orthodox and the Catholics need to recognize the Church in each other. The Catholics do, but the Orthodox do not. The second order, which would follow, is to recognize each other’s sacraments as valid. With these points out of the way, only then can other impediments to union be resolved.

I think that this is a very good summation of the situation, by Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP: bit.ly/1m2DbuT

Pax Christi

Thank you for that link! I read all of it and it was definitely interesting. I did know some of what was mentioned. I also have to disagree that we Latins are what are stopping complete unity for the Eastern Churches to come back into the fold. Many Eastern Christians simply do hate us via the Church of Rome as a whole. I want to say that they misunderstand us but I really don’t seem to be getting that impression.

 

[PatrickC]

I’m waiting for the Pope to free every soul from purgatory through an indulgence, which he has the power to do. He could also free possibly a majority his Church from mortal sin by removing the threat from missing mass on Sundays and from failing to observe the few fasts left. He could literally remove the requirement and make either a venial sin, but he won’t. In the same way, he could get your grandmother out of purgatory via the superabundance of grace of the saints, but he won’t do that either. We don’t believe in this system, but you do…that doesn’t bother you? It would bother me to no end.

 

[Augustine]

I suppose looking at it from their point of view it really does make sense as to why they would be upset. Yet, it goes to show that there are Eastern Christians who do seem to agree with us on the role of the successor of St. Peter in the overall Catholic Church.

It should be pointed out that many uniate churches came into being for extrinsic reasons to religion. Some did see the light, but some came to Rome because they needed Western military support and, as a payment, offered union. Many byzantine emperors made the same offer umpteen times. One such offer even resulted in many Orthodox bishops accepting unification with Rome in Florence, just to be opposed by other bishops back home and massively by the faithful. Some uniate churches were the result of internal disputes in particular churches, sometimes involving just one wayward bishop. We are not talking about angels, but about men. And even holy men goof up every now an then and people get hurt and separated.

Please if you have the time, I’m more than willing to discuss these complex issues. I may not know all the complexities of these situation, yet I do wish to learn and discuss this.

As someone whose parish is Eastern Catholic, it’s a subject that fascinates me. Though I’m a mere diletante student, I’m always glad to discuss it to share what I know and learn from others. It’s fascinating to me because, spiritually, the Orthodox Church is the mother of the Eastern Catholic Churches (including the Maronite Church, which never fell into schism with Rome). Their theology was developed in the first millennium by the Desert Fathers and the Early Fathers of the Church. They lived this development for centuries and very much attuned to each other, speaking the same language, untainted by Western Scholasticism.

I also have to disagree that we Latins are what are stopping complete unity for the Eastern Churches to come back into the fold. Many Eastern Christians simply do hate us via the Church of Rome as a whole. I want to say that they misunderstand us but I really don’t seem to be getting that impression.

Well, whether on the ground, among the faithful, and in the ivory and bell towers, among theologians and clergy, there’s much hate and opposition to unity on both sides. Just read some of the posts in this thread to find some examples from both sides. Again, we are talking about men, not about angels, since it’s men who need a Church, not angels.

Pax Christi

 

[Louie1983]

I’m waiting for the Pope to free every soul from purgatory through an indulgence, which he has the power to do. He could also free possibly a majority his Church from mortal sin by removing the threat from missing mass on Sundays and from failing to observe the few fasts left. He could literally remove the requirement and make either a venial sin, but he won’t. In the same way, he could get your grandmother out of purgatory via the superabundance of grace of the saints, but he won’t do that either. We don’t believe in this system, but you do…that doesn’t bother you? It would bother me to no end.

Complete and utter rubbish this post.

 

[PatrickC]

Complete and utter rubbish this post.

So he can’t do that or what? He can offer you complete remission of the punishment due you in purgatory, or apply it to those who are there, and he doesn’t? Seems unconscionable. The conditions imposed for obtaining one of those are just sort or there for your own good, right? “Do this thing, be free from attachment to sin and pray for the Pope”. They aren’t absolutely necessary except that those are the conditions applied, right? It sounds snarky, but I’ve always wanted an answer for that. I’m totally aware that even an earned indulgence isn’t a guarantee, since no one really knows, but why not just do it and hope for the best? A plenary indulgence for every soul in purgatory!

 

[ARSpade]

It wouldn’t be in the churches you name because (I think) they’re all Catholic, and the Catholic Church is not territorial.

I think it’s different in America even with the Orthodox, where strict territoriality is impossible to maintain due to the diverse population, mobility and the sheer distastefulness of inter-church arguments over who ought to have California versus Illinois. The farther east one goes, the more different it becomes, because one really is dealing with nation states that have a more or less homogenous ethnic origin and national governments that might back their claims.

The Moscow Patriarchate does not accept as legitimate the presence of Eastern Catholics in

I don’t understand.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

One way to show to you that the Church of Rome leans more towards disciplining than to mentoring is the incredible detailed catechism, a beautiful catechism which the Church of Rome teaches to her people even from a young age. That is part and parcel of the discipline structure which the Church of Rome enjoys. The Eastern Churches however do not have this detailed catechism as does the Church of Rome. The question is how does the Eastern Churches pass on this teaching. The fact is the Eastern Churches go about it through a mentoring or nurturing trait. You can learn about life through both traits. The discipline trait tells you for it is very much like giving you the “Sermon on the Mount”. The mentoring or nurturing state is more involved in listening to you and it is very much helping you to live out the “Semon of the Mount”. Do you see what I am getting at? These two great Churches go about teaching through two different but complimentary ways which really are what the two main parental traits are needed when you are instructing children in any family. You need the right balance of disciplining and mentoring. Too much disciplining or too much mentoring is not the way but a balance is necessary for the development of any child. Since this true for the family it must be true for the Churches. In a very beautiful development God has given to our Church the parental trait to discipline more to the Church of Rome while giving the parental trait to mentor more to the Eastern Churches. This is why we need each other why we belong to each other. We can lean on each other’s strengths.
I have grown up in the Antiochian Orthodox Church baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church worshipping with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. My early formation was worshipping as a Catholic at the Mass in the first 28 years of my life but my father told me about my baptism in the Eastern Church and that was when I had decided to discover this Church I had never known. My perspective in living in both Churches Catholic and Eastern has given me a much better appreciation of both Churches. Thank you for asking.

I love this post. You are right about the balance between mentoring and discipline.