Pope expresses hope for reunion with Orthodox Patriarch

[prodromos]

I also don’t see that a union between Catholics an Orthodox would have much of an impact on the churches witness to the world or even to the rest of christendom. For the vast majority of people, the Orthodox Church doesn’t even register on their radar. It may impact a few of the more knowledgable christians but the vast majority would simply go “meh?”

 

[gmcbroom]

While I don’t think the Pope would ever convert to Orthodoxy. He is heavily influenced by a Byzantine priest he knew and even uses his own Chokti. If anything I believe he’d be open to reunion and would even move towards it but in charity not in demands. At present though I believe he’s treading cautiously to at least seek better relations between the two great communions if more results from this all the better.

Peace be with you.

 

[Contarini]

Well, I don’t think it will ever happen that a Pope will convert to Orthodoxy; but if somehow it did then I would expect a split.

It depends on what you mean by “convert to Orthodoxy,” of course.

From a Western perspective, that isn’t even a reasonable way to describe it, since we don’t think we are of a different faith than the Orthodox. (Of course, ecumenical Protestants, especially Anglicans, would say the same about Catholicism.)

But if the Pope were to drop the Filioque from the Creed and renounce papal infallibility, there would no doubt be a lot of head-shaking and grumbling, and there might be a few folks who would join the schismatic traditionalists and maybe a few who would join the Episcopalians. But I don’t think there would be a massive schism.

I may be wrong. But I don’t see it happening

Edwin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It depends on what you mean by “convert to Orthodoxy,” of course.

From a Western perspective, that isn’t even a reasonable way to describe it, since we don’t think we are of a different faith than the Orthodox. (Of course, ecumenical Protestants, especially Anglicans, would say the same about Catholicism.)

But if the Pope were to drop the Filioque from the Creed and renounce papal infallibility, there would no doubt be a lot of head-shaking and grumbling, and there might be a few folks who would join the schismatic traditionalists and maybe a few who would join the Episcopalians. But I don’t think there would be a massive schism.

I may be wrong. But I don’t see it happening

Edwin

You know what?

I don’t need infallibility to recognize and respect the authority of the Pope, or to doubt its correctness. I also have no problem with saying from the Father or from the Father and the Son. I would remain faithful :yup:

 

[Cavaradossi]

Catholics would not split over this. I’m sure the Orthodox would. But I doubt another Patriarch of Constantinople would be elected. Wouldn’t the anti-union Orthodox just write off Constantinople?

This is all very hypothetical, but speaking purely hypothetically, that would depend entirely on who would dissent.

 

[HansTrappist]

Amen! A divided Christianity is our greatest failing as Christians and the whole world observes this infighting, what a shame!

Exactly!

And who is responsible for dividing Christianity? Satan, that’s who. Diabolic literally translates as “to rend asunder.”

 

[Reuben_J]

But if the Pope were to drop the Filioque from the Creed and renounce papal infallibility, there would no doubt be a lot of head-shaking and grumbling, and there might be a few folks who would join the schismatic traditionalists and maybe a few who would join the Episcopalians. But I don’t think there would be a massive schism.

I may be wrong. But I don’t see it happening

Edwin

Papal infallibility would never be renounced. No Pope can overturn that. But maybe it can be reworded to make it acceptable to the Orthodox remembering that they do accept the unique primacy of Peter in what they insist as in the early Church. The universal jurisdiction of the Pope needs to be negotiated. The Filioque would be confined to the Latin translation only. But oh boy, I don’t envy those at all who have to nagivate through these.

 

[Peter_J]

It depends on what you mean by “convert to Orthodoxy,” of course.

From a Western perspective, that isn’t even a reasonable way to describe it, since we don’t think we are of a different faith than the Orthodox.

Good point. Once in a while I’m a little sloppy and use the word “convert” for anyone switching from one religion to another or switching from one church or denomination to another.

But if the Pope were to drop the Filioque from the Creed and renounce papal infallibility, there would no doubt be a lot of head-shaking and grumbling, and there might be a few folks who would join the schismatic traditionalists and maybe a few who would join the Episcopalians. But I don’t think there would be a massive schism.

I may be wrong. But I don’t see it happening

Edwin

Agreed. Although I would also point out that a Pope renouncing papal infallibility seems highly unlikely (though not quite as unlikely as a Pope flat-out becoming Orthodox). Even for him to say that it is now an optional belief seems very unlikely.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to see reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. In some of the posts it seems that some think that one side or the other has to give up something. I wonder if instead of giving up somethiing that each side has somethig to gain from reuniting. I think it would make us stronger and enrich our faith in Christ all the more. I think that there is much that can offered between Catholic and Orthodox that would enhance the Word of God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thats just my opinion, but I do wonder how we can again fron each other instead of having to give up in order to win.

 

[RyanBlack]

I think many would agree that both Orthodox and Catholics would gain from the restoration of communion. However, I don’t see how reunion can take place without at least one side making concessions. Even if restoration of communion were along the lines of “Let’s agree to disagree over our doctrinal and disciplinary differences, but still be in communion,” that would still involve a concession, since the Orthodox currently insist that there must be doctrinal agreement for there to be shared communion.

 

[spina1953]

I would think that maybe there could be a common denominater that would lead to some consenus that then brings a compromise and then some type of concission or concissions leading to reunion between Catholic and Orthodox. I don’t think one side or the other needs to give up everything for the sake of union, but some form of understanding is surely needed if once again we can be reunited in union with each other.

 

[NoWings]

As an Agnostic, I’ll simply say this:

The day the Orthodox and Catholics unify once again is the day I’ll convert on the spot because I know only a miracle would ever allow this to happen.

 

[adf417]

This is a very interesting statement NoWings. If you could reverse time to a given point of what you would consider as “once again”, when would that be using Wiki’s time frame below? How will you know when this miracle has happened?

The schism between the Eastern and Western Mediterranean Christians resulted from a variety of political, cultural and theological factors which transpired over centuries.[16] Historians regard the mutual excommunications of 1054 as the terminal event.[17] It is difficult to agree on an exact date for the event where the start of the schism was apparent.[18] It may have started as early as the[19] Quartodeciman controversy at the time of Victor of Rome (c. 180). Orthodox apologists point to this incident as an example of claims by Rome to papal primacy and rejection by Eastern Churches. Sporadic schisms in the common unions took place under Pope Damasus I in the 4th and 5th centuries.[20][21][22][page needed] Disputes about theological and other questions led to schisms between the Churches in Rome and Constantinople for 37 years from 482 to 519 (the Acacian Schism). Most sources agree that the separation between East and West is clearly evident by the Photian schism for 13 years from 866–879.[23]

Peace!!!

 

[MommaduckofMany]

Papal infallibility would never be renounced. No Pope can overturn that. But maybe it can be reworded to make it acceptable to the Orthodox remembering that they do accept the unique primacy of Peter in what they insist as in the early Church. The universal jurisdiction of the Pope needs to be negotiated. The Filioque would be confined to the Latin translation only. But oh boy, I don’t envy those at all who have to nagivate through these.

So basically, make it look like the RCC is in agreement with the EOC, but really it’s only a matter of shuffling the deck, changing a few words, continuing on under the rader, and in essence nothing really changed.

Uhm, this is not true unity and not acceptable.

Also, everyone keeps referring to the Patriarch of Constantinople as though he is the Orthodox Pope. He’s not. He’s one of several Patriarchs. Rome would have to have the agreement of ALL the Patriarchs and the Pope/Roman Patriarch would be one amoung equals. Primacy is different than Supremacy. These are things that we would have to be understood for unity.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

…since the Orthodox currently insist that there must be doctrinal agreement for there to be shared communion.

Do you see something wrong with this?

 

[RyanBlack]

Do you see something wrong with this?

I didn’t say that there was anything wrong with it.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

I didn’t say that there was anything wrong with it.

Okay, was asking for clarity. The way it read was, “well, we could have union, but those Orthodox are insisting on doctrinal unity,” as though there was something wrong with insisting on doctrinal unity (something both sides should be wanting, or else it’s a false unity).

(the internet can be difficult on reading tone…one only has how something is written to go on )

 

[RyanBlack]

Okay, was asking for clarity. **The way it read was, “well, we could have union, but those Orthodox are insisting on doctrinal unity,”**as though there was something wrong with insisting on doctrinal unity (something both sides should be wanting, or else it’s a false unity).

(the internet can be difficult on reading tone…one only has how something is written to go on )

My point was that even if there were an agreement to restored communion along the lines of
“let’s overlook our differences, but share communion anyway” that would still involve a concession on the part of the Orthodox, exactly because the Orthodox insist that there must be doctrinal agreement in order to have shared communion. My point was not at all along the lines of “well, we could have union, but those Orthodox are insisting on doctrinal unity” in the sense of the Orthodox making unnecessary or unreasonable demands.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

My point was that even if there were an agreement to restored communion along the lines of
“let’s overlook our differences, but share communion anyway” that would still involve a concession on the part of the Orthodox, exactly because the Orthodox insist that there must be doctrinal agreement in order to have shared communion. My point was not at all along the lines of “well, we could have union, but those Orthodox are insisting on doctrinal unity” in the sense of the Orthodox making unnecessary or unreasonable demands.

More that it would require concession of the Catholics, because we demand doctrinal unity.

 

[Estevao]

While I like the Pope’s optimism, I don’t expect this to happen in our lifetimes. Sad for us Christians, but I bet it makes the devil happy.