Opinions please

[mardukm]

I want to present the following scenario:

A certain apostolic Church X is in dialogue with the Catholic Church for several years. In a certain country Z which is traditionally Catholic, Church X finds that the secular government refuses to recognize its official status. The official status does not affect Church X’s missionary activity in that country. Church X decides to make its recognition in country Z a pre-condition for the continuation of the dialogue with the Catholic Church. IOW, if the Catholic Church does not persuade country X to recognize its status, the dialogue will end.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the actions of Church X deplorable?

Yes, this is a real case, and the apostolic Church spoken of is one of the recognized apostolic Churches, not some vagante group. I don’t want to identify Church X, and I will not identify Church X, so please don’t even ask.

Blessings.

 

[malphono]

Before even venturing a preliminary opinion, I would need some historical background as well as some idea of the socio-political milieu. Since both are absent, I have to reserve comment.

 

[trophybearer]

I want to present the following scenario:

A certain apostolic Church X is in dialogue with the Catholic Church for several years. In a certain country Z which is traditionally Catholic, Church X finds that the secular government refuses to recognize its official status. The official status does not affect Church X’s missionary activity in that country. Church X decides to make its recognition in country Z a pre-condition for the continuation of the dialogue with the Catholic Church. IOW, if the Catholic Church does not persuade country X to recognize its status, the dialogue will end.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the actions of Church X deplorable?

Yes, this is a real case, and the apostolic Church spoken of is one of the recognized apostolic Churches, not some vagante group. I don’t want to identify Church X, and I will not identify Church X, so please don’t even ask.

Blessings.

What is “Russin Orthodox Church in Ireland”?

 

[CDNowak]

I want to present the following scenario:

A certain apostolic Church X is in dialogue with the Catholic Church for several years. In a certain country Z which is traditionally Catholic, Church X finds that the secular government refuses to recognize its official status. The official status does not affect Church X’s missionary activity in that country. Church X decides to make its recognition in country Z a pre-condition for the continuation of the dialogue with the Catholic Church. IOW, if the Catholic Church does not persuade country X to recognize its status, the dialogue will end.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the actions of Church X deplorable?

Not deplorable as such. Misguided, certainly. The desire for recognition of a religion by the state (and the attendant benefits) is a natural desire by the devotees of any religion. To make that demand of anything other than an established state religion is laughable, and to make dialogue contingent on it will only serve to further alienate said religion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Before even venturing a preliminary opinion, I would need some historical background as well as some idea of the socio-political milieu. Since both are absent, I have to reserve comment.

I don’t understand what relevance that those two criteria could have. Can you explain a bit more?

1. What historical information do you need?
2. What kind of socio-political info do you need?
3. What relevance would that kind of information have on theological dialogue?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother CDNowak

Not deplorable as such. Misguided, certainly. The desire for recognition of a religion by the state (and the attendant benefits) is a natural desire by the devotees of any religion. To make that demand of anything other than an established state religion is laughable, and to make dialogue contingent on it will only serve to further alienate said religion.

What relevance would the Catholic Church being the state religion have? I don’t think “state religion” has the same connotations today as in the past (well, except in Muslim countries).

I guess I consider it deplorable because a Church is purposefully putting up a stumbling block that opposes Christ’s desire for His Church to be One.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

There is also a double standard between those churches regarding the evangelizing of the others lapsed members, and sometimes active members as well.

 

[Nine_Two]

If it is a traditionally Catholic country then the Catholic Church is going to have a great deal of influence. While it might be over the top to demand they convince the other government, it isn’t over the top to demand they use their influence to help convince that other state.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

If it is a traditionally Catholic country then the Catholic Church is going to have a great deal of influence.

Agreed.

While it might be over the top to demand they convince the other government, it isn’t over the top to demand they use their influence to help convince that other state.

The condition was that the dialogue would not resume until Church X was officially recognized. Yes, that is over the top.

In any case, why make it a condition for theological dialogue to continue? Sure, ask the Catholic Church for help, and I’m sure she would because it is in her nature. But why make dialogue suffer? What does official recognition by a secular government have to do with the Truths of the Faith?

Blessings

 

[malphono]

I don’t understand what relevance that those two criteria could have. Can you explain a bit more?

It would, e.g., make a difference if the “secular government” involved were one where there is a State Church. For another example, some countries maintain what amounts to a registry of recognized religious denominations. Those that are not recognized can be suppressed at the will of the State. For a third, is there a history of war between the “home country” of the Orthodox and the “secular government” of this State? There are other things too, including (but not necessarily limited to): what kind of Orthodoxy is involved here? Is it real (i.e. Eastern) or is it some sort of “Western Orthodox” mission activity?

What relevance would that kind of information have on theological dialogue?

The relevance is in the variables.

 

[CDNowak]

Dear brother CDNowak

What relevance would the Catholic Church being the state religion have? I don’t think “state religion” has the same connotations today as in the past (well, except in Muslim countries).

I guess I consider it deplorable because a Church is purposefully putting up a stumbling block that opposes Christ’s desire for His Church to be One.

Blessings,
Marduk

A state religion generally would have the influence to allow another religion to be tolerated. (Russia practically has a state religion; England officially has one but it is falling out of favor). A point in favor of your analysis.

If you’ll allow me a tangent to make my thought clearer? Mentally I go back and forth on whether religious pluralism is a good or bad thing. I do think that pluralism among the actual Churches (Orthodox , Coptic, and Catholic) is a good thing, but otherwise not so much. I do think that openness to freedom of worship for those should be guaranteed, but historically that has been tied to aggressive proselytism by both sides of the conflict.

Given the messy history and potentially one-sided demand (depends on the exact situation), then yes, the politics are sadly part of the dialogue. I view it as a tragedy of the human condition far more than as a particular affront.

 

[steve_b]

I want to present the following scenario:

A certain apostolic Church X is in dialogue with the Catholic Church for several years. In a certain country Z which is traditionally Catholic, Church X finds that the secular government refuses to recognize its official status. The official status does not affect Church X’s missionary activity in that country. Church X decides to make its recognition in country Z a pre-condition for the continuation of the dialogue with the Catholic Church. IOW, if the Catholic Church does not persuade country X to recognize its status, the dialogue will end.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the actions of Church X deplorable?

Yes, this is a real case, and the apostolic Church spoken of is one of the recognized apostolic Churches, not some vagante group. I don’t want to identify Church X, and I will not identify Church X, so please don’t even ask.

Blessings.

If X is who I think it is, and X is not being hampered from doing their work now in country Z a Catholic country, then given how Church X acts in their own country towards the CC, then what you suggest is not just deplorable it’s hypocrasy on steroids

 

[Pakesh]

I want to present the following scenario:

A certain apostolic Church X is in dialogue with the Catholic Church for several years. In a certain country Z which is traditionally Catholic, Church X finds that the secular government refuses to recognize its official status. The official status does not affect Church X’s missionary activity in that country. Church X decides to make its recognition in country Z a pre-condition for the continuation of the dialogue with the Catholic Church. IOW, if the Catholic Church does not persuade country X to recognize its status, the dialogue will end.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the actions of Church X deplorable?

Yes, this is a real case, and the apostolic Church spoken of is one of the recognized apostolic Churches, not some vagante group. I don’t want to identify Church X, and I will not identify Church X, so please don’t even ask.

Blessings.

I think I know exactly the situation you are referring to, but I won’t name names either.
Personally, I do find it deplorable. What if in trying to persuade Country Z, the Catholic Church gets “in trouble” with said country? Generally, I have an issue across the board with “official” religions in any country. I don’t think the state has any business allowing or disallowing certain denominations or religions recognition. Just my opinion.

Now, the other question I would have, that might change my opinion, is whether official status would be needed for Church X to build Churches, Monasteries, etc. But, that goes back to my point about the state being involved in the first place. As I am literally writing this, I can see both sides of the situation, but my first gut reaction is still that it’s deplorable.
God Bless,
Pakesh

 

[mardukm]

Thank you all for your responses. Some have given good possible reasons as to why an apostolic Church might require official recognition by the State.

But can anyone provide any reasonable justification for Church X to prevent theological dialogue with the Catholic Church until such State recognition is acquired?

I should have made this a poll.

Blessings

 

[Nine_Two]

Thank you all for your responses. Some have given good possible reasons as to why an apostolic Church might require official recognition by the State.

But can anyone provide any reasonable justification for Church X to prevent theological dialogue with the Catholic Church until such State recognition is acquired?

I should have made this a poll.

Blessings

The Church in question doesn’t see dialogue as a priority and is going to go for what it does consider to be priority first, and is offering to make it more of a priority in exchange for help in fulfilling other things.

Obviously I have no idea what the mindset actually is, but that makes sense.

 

[mardukm]

The Church in question doesn’t see dialogue as a priority and is going to go for what it does consider to be priority first, and is offering to make it more of a priority in exchange for help in fulfilling other things.

Obviously I have no idea what the mindset actually is, but that makes sense.

That’s a reasonable explanation.

Though no doubt there will be those who will view Church X as an insincere dialogue partner, who only wishes to use the Catholic Church to further its own ends., without concern for the fact that Jesus asserted in no uncertain terms that unity itself will be a witness to the world that the Father sent the Son.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother CDNowak

What relevance would the Catholic Church being the state religion have? I don’t think “state religion” has the same connotations today as in the past (well, except in Muslim countries).

I guess I consider it deplorable because a Church is purposefully putting up a stumbling block that opposes Christ’s desire for His Church to be One.

Blessings,
Marduk

It’s a stain on Church X, nothing more.

All are invited to the table. Some answer; but must be turned away for having dressed wrong; others show up, demand whiskey instead of wine, and are turned away due to their own intoxication. Some fill up on appetizers and leave early. Only a few show up and eat with the master at dinner, dressed properly.

They have come to the door, and said dinner smells bad, and are refusing to come in until given ice cream.

 

[John21652]

Dear brother CDNowak

What relevance would the Catholic Church being the state religion have? I don’t think “state religion” has the same connotations today as in the past (well, except in Muslim countries).

I guess I consider it deplorable because a Church is purposefully putting up a stumbling block that opposes Christ’s desire for His Church to be One.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’d like to know more about the withdrawal of Stae recognition and what it means. Does the withdrawal of the recognition make it hard, harder, or near impossible for Church X to function? Does withdrawal of recognition mean it’s a pre-cursor to persecution? What is it that makes it so important that Church X has to effectively blackmail the Catholic Church? Prima Facie it does seem a stain on Church X, but before I pass judgenebt I want to know more about why Church X has acted as it has. Prima Facie it may indeed seem that Christ’s desire for one Church is threatened. However, is it possible that the leaders of Church X see a greater and longer term threat with the withdrawal of state recognition?

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s a reasonable explanation.

Though no doubt there will be those who will view Church X as an insincere dialogue partner, who only wishes to use the Catholic Church to further its own ends., without concern for the fact that Jesus asserted in no uncertain terms that unity itself will be a witness to the world that the Father sent the Son.

Blessings

Every Apostolic Church I’m aware of asserts the Church is already united.

 

[Pakesh]

But can anyone provide any reasonable justification for Church X to prevent theological dialogue with the Catholic Church until such State recognition is acquired?

I should have made this a poll.

Blessings

Mardukm,
My answer is no-I don’t see any reason whatsoever to prevent theological dialogue! Furthermore, the Apostolic Churches right now are not united. Full unity, to me, means all Apostolic Churches are in Communion with each other, and no schism exists.
God Bless,
Pakesh