Pope to Patriarch: We Need Unity Faster

[RevDrNorth]

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI sent a personal message to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II saying that modern times call for a hastening of the journey toward Christian unity.

See whole article here…
zenit.org/rssenglish-23824

Interesting. The idea of a reunification of the two branches of the ancient church is appealing. Both claim the other split from them. Additionally, I have read some EO sites with non-canonical Churches that are very much opposed to ecumenicalism. A number of these split over issues ranging from the new calendar, to perceived ecumenism, or a dislike for the Patriarch of Moscow.

While the idea sounds good, I am not sure about the practicality of it. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both lay claim to be the original church and have quite different ideas about the supremacy of Rome. How could they overcome doctrinal issues that the Orthodox see as innovations on the part of the Catholic Church (an opinion with which Rome would vehemently disagree) and the differing view in regard to the Papacy.

I suspect there is a better chance of the EO & OO managing some sort of unity.

You are right that it does not hurt to pray.

 

[DelScorcho]

I, as a recently reverterd Catholic who thought abiout Orthodoxy, desperately want to see the “two lungs of the Church” reunited. We need what I call “Apostolic Christianity” to unite as one entity to fight protestantism and secularism in our society. After that, we can prove to the world that the truly “one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” is truly the only way to know God. We can’t tell Muslims and Hindus that “we’re” right, when not even the “real” churches (ones with Apostolic Succsession) will admit that one another are right.

Let us all pray every day for Christian unity.

Two questions:

1. What is “Christian Unity”?
2. Why would you want to “fight protestantism”?

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting. The idea of a reunification of the two branches of the ancient church is appealing. Both claim the other split from them. Additionally, I have read some EO sites with non-canonical Churches that are very much opposed to ecumenicalism. A number of these split over issues ranging from the new calendar, to perceived ecumenism, or a dislike for the Patriarch of Moscow.

While the idea sounds good, I am not sure about the practicality of it. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both lay claim to be the original church and have quite different ideas about the supremacy of Rome. How could they overcome doctrinal issues that the Orthodox see as innovations on the part of the Catholic Church (an opinion with which Rome would vehemently disagree) and the differing view in regard to the Papacy.

I suspect there is a better chance of the EO & OO managing some sort of unity.

You are right that it does not hurt to pray.

Pretty good post.

 

[Hesychios]

Two questions:

1. What is “Christian Unity”?

A very good question. It means different things to different people.

1. Why would you want to “fight protestantism”?

I cannot answer for anyone else.

But I can tell you this, from my perspective as an Orthodox Christian: There is only ONE Truth. There is no point in legitimizing the concept that Truth for you being different from Truth for me is OK.

Protestantism itself seems almost undefinable to me. It is an umbrella concept under which almost any theology may be found. And since there is so much mutual respect between the traditions “as long as they are not Catholic” a breeds a form of indifferentism. Perhaps this is why the mainline churches are losing membership at a steady pace, the younger generations are learning that it ultimately makes little difference and many are attracted to the most convenient, or the most comfortable religious experiences. The non-denoms are pulling in people from every direction.

I believe how one worships God is important, and all the truly Apostolic churches, from western Europe through the Greek speaking and Syrian lands, Egypt, Ethiopia and as far east as southern India all have the Holy Eucharist and clerical orders of bishops and priests to confect the Holy Mysteries. It is as distinctive in it’s commonalities as it is varying in it’s local customs. This is no accident and yet it cannot be explained away as the work of Constantine or Roman state religion.

The first state to ever legalize Christianity was not Rome, but Armenia, and all of these far-flung churches had their origins in pre-Constantinian missions from Palestine. They all, without exception, have bishops and priests and believe in the Real presence of Christ in Holy Communion. There is no historical evidence of any ancient church that did not.

The 16th century eruption of Protestant factions seriously weakened this understanding of church in the modern west. Interestingly enough, the “reformers” (originally mostly western Catholic priests) tended to think (under the popular theory of the day) that they were actually returning to a truer, simpler, Apostolic form of Christianity. Today we know that they were mistaken.

I personally would like to see the Protestant factional churches attempt to restore the Holy Mysteries in their spiritual life, and find some way to reconnect with their mother church. Serious progress in talks along these lines would probably draw the Orthodox in as observers or participants as well.

 

[DelScorcho]

A very good question. It means different things to different people.
I cannot answer for anyone else.

But I can tell you this, from my perspective as an Orthodox Christian: There is only ONE Truth. There is no point in legitimizing the concept that Truth for you being different from Truth for me is OK.

Protestantism itself seems almost undefinable to me. It is an umbrella concept under which almost any theology may be found. And since there is so much mutual respect between the traditions “as long as they are not Catholic” a breeds a form of indifferentism. Perhaps this is why the mainline churches are losing membership at a steady pace, the younger generations are learning that it ultimately makes little difference and many are attracted to the most convenient, or the most comfortable religious experiences. The non-denoms are pulling in people from every direction.

I believe how one worships God is important, and all the truly Apostolic churches, from western Europe through the Greek speaking and Syrian lands, Egypt, Ethiopia and as far east as southern India all have the Holy Eucharist and clerical orders of bishops and priests to confect the Holy Mysteries. It is as distinctive in it’s commonalities as it is varying in it’s local customs. This is no accident and yet it cannot be explained away as the work of Constantine or Roman state religion.

The first state to ever legalize Christianity was not Rome, but Armenia, and all of these far-flung churches had their origins in pre-Constantinian missions from Palestine. They all, without exception, have bishops and priests and believe in the Real presence of Christ in Holy Communion. There is no historical evidence of any ancient church that did not.

The 16th century eruption of Protestant factions seriously weakened this understanding of church in the modern west. Interestingly enough, the “reformers” (originally mostly western Catholic priests) tended to think (under the popular theory of the day) that they were actually returning to a truer, simpler, Apostolic form of Christianity. Today we know that they were mistaken.

I personally would like to see the Protestant factional churches attempt to restore the Holy Mysteries in their spiritual life, and find some way to reconnect with their mother church. Serious progress in talks along these lines would probably draw the Orthodox in as observers or participants as well.

You have really posted a thoughtful reply… thank you.

The way I see it is if Protestants wanted to be Catholic, they would convert… why try to change their religion People choose religions for various reasons (as you alluded to in your post) and I don’t see that as a bad thing. I believe it is better to have people go to a church they are comfortable with than to have them not go at all.

Just my two cents.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The next step to unity is not a secret. It is for the Pope and the Catholic bishops to indicate a readiness to reevaluate some of the post-schism teachings that came to be proclaimed as dogmas in the west: the double procession of the Holy Spirit, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility.
It will then be incumbent of the Orthodox to recognize the value of Western spirituality, and not anathematize it wholesale.

 

[DelScorcho]

The next step to unity is not a secret. It is for the Pope and the Catholic bishops to indicate a readiness to reevaluate some of the post-schism teachings that came to be proclaimed as dogmas in the west: the double procession of the Holy Spirit, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility.
It will then be incumbent of the Orthodox to recognize the value of Western spirituality, and not anathematize it wholesale.

I agree, the only chance for any kind of unity is for the RCC to change as well. What do you think the chances of that are… I’d say zero.

 

[Peter_J]

The next step to unity is not a secret. It is for the Pope and the Catholic bishops to indicate a readiness to reevaluate some of the post-schism teachings that came to be proclaimed as dogmas in the west: the double procession of the Holy Spirit, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility.

I partially agree with you – yes, those are the key doctrinal issues; but have you considered the Pope and the Catholic bishops might reevaluate them, and then say that yes they are in fact dogmas? (Well, technically I guess indulgences have never been dogmatically defined, but you know what I mean.) Or do you just assume that “reevaluating” entails coming to the conclusion you want to hear?

 

[Alethiaphile]

I partially agree with you – yes, those are the key doctrinal issues; but have you considered the Pope and the Catholic bishops might reevaluate them, and then say that yes they are in fact dogmas? (Well, technically I guess indulgences have never been dogmatically defined, but you know what I mean.) Or do you just assume that “reevaluating” entails coming to the conclusion you want to hear?

I’m betting that if they were honestly reevaluated, they would under heavy revision. I think a lot of RC theologians and bishops would be glad to discard them. But I could be wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m betting that if they were honestly reevaluated, they would under heavy revision. I think a lot of RC theologians and bishops would be glad to discard them. But I could be wrong.

I think a lot of RC theologians and bishops wish they had never been dogmatically defined, but that’s not the same thing.

 

[ralphinal]

I think that, sooner or later, Christianity will be divided along two hard lines: those who understand a sacramental approach and those who do not.

I can see small divisions about other things, but I cannot see Baptists and Catholics unifying. Orthodox and Lutherans might, etc.

 

[Hesychios]

I think that, sooner or later, Christianity will be divided along two hard lines: those who understand a sacramental approach and those who do not.

I can see small divisions about other things, but I cannot see Baptists and Catholics unifying. Orthodox and Lutherans might, etc.

True.

Baptists (in general) drifted too far out long ago. The undertow has got them and there is no reasonable expectation that they can be convinced on the whole to a sacramental theology. Corporately, I have my doubts about any big changes in that direction. Individuals convert, but each in his own place and time. Interestingly though, when Baptists really study their scripture they sometimes find that their own understanding of the New Testament church is ripe for revision.

It has led many a pastor into the Apostolic arms of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and sometimes significant numbers of the faithful will follow them.

 

[Peter_J]

I think that, sooner or later, Christianity will be divided along two hard lines: those who understand a sacramental approach and those who do not.

Yes, and I would add that I think the second group, the non-sacramental Christians, will be (or will continue to be) strongly divided into liberal and conservative camps.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, and I would add that I think the second group, the non-sacramental Christians, will be (or will continue to be) strongly divided into liberal and conservative camps.

Logically, they will be strongly divided into those and more. Without an understanding of the unity provided by the Sacramental life, I can see no other outcome.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Amen!

God bless the Pope. As I have said on this board before, the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople and/or a majority of the Orthodox enter into communion with Rome will be the day I show up at the door of the nearest Catholic/Orthodox church and ask to be received. Any justification (pretty slender as it is) that Protestantism has derives from the unfortunate division of East and West and will end with the end of that division.

Edwin

You’re the expert - but…how do you work that out ? How does Protestantism depend for its origin or its theology on the East-West split ? If they were reconciled, how would that falsify the five solas, or the Protestant Confessions ? I must be missing something - but what ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle,

I think you might be spending too much time on the internet. If you get to know the “real Orthodox” (as opposed to the image of them that’s presented on the internet), you’ll see that they are a lot like us: they want unity, but only unity based on truth.

BTW, nobody (regardless of whether you’re talking about Orthodox, Protestants, or Catholics) is saying to anybody else “We believe you’re in heresy; but that’s okay, you can enter into full communion with us while still continuing in your heresy.”

As if that weren’t obvious ​

Jesus was interested in people - not in some abstract (& therefore malleable) “truth”. Truth is wonderful because it can take any form at all, even if it is utterly different from “truth” as it was in the past. Essentially, this ever-so important-truth is an empty set: it has no content, other than what those in control of it see fit to put into it. With us, the Pope is its Controller - so he can take out what he likes: such as Limbo, which used to be part of this Truth, but no longer is.

Truth in Christianity has for a long time been simply a matter of who is in control of saying what truth is - which has nothing to do with veracity. That doesn’t stop it being a jolly good thing to sacrifice people to. Infallibility ? That’s nothing to do with truth - Infallibility, whether of pope, Church, Councils, or bishops, does not require truth, but only the appearance of something that looks like it for practical purposes. As long as an infallible doctrine can seem infallible because it presents no known difficulties, it’s infallible - that it may in the long run be nonsense or false, is not adverted to.

Truth is for all practical purposes subject to sinful man - unlike Christ, Who cannot be controlled or manipulated by men. So truth-worship is idolatry, not Christianity. Truth is not nearly valuable enough to be the god it is; yet it is treated as one. When the mere word is excuse enough to separate those whom God has put together, it is being treated as a god, when it ought to be thrown into the outer darkness. It will cease to be a devil only when we stop treating it as a god. Until then, it will carry on doing the works of the devil.

 

[jheii]

Two questions:

1. What is “Christian Unity”?
2. Why would you want to “fight protestantism”?

There’s already been a better answer to both of these questions than I could give, but I’ll still give it a shot.

1. When I say “Christian Unity,” I refer specifically to the unification of the Apostolic Churches.
2. I suppose “fight” was the wrong word. However, I do think that the fullness of truth lies in the Apostolic Churches and that the various protestant sects are in a state of great error. The unification of the Apostolic Churches would provide a great witness that might prompt those belonging to other denominations to rethink the idea of what it means to be a Christian.

God bless.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Wow.
Makes me wonder what Christ was talking about: “The Truth shall set you free”, “Your Word is Truth”

That the notion of “truth” can and often has been abused- no argument.

 

[Peter_J]

Truth is for all practical purposes subject to sinful man - unlike Christ, Who cannot be controlled or manipulated by men. So truth-worship is idolatry, not Christianity. Truth is not nearly valuable enough to be the god it is; yet it is treated as one. When the mere word is excuse enough to separate those whom God has put together, it is being treated as a god, when it ought to be thrown into the outer darkness. It will cease to be a devil only when we stop treating it as a god. Until then, it will carry on doing the works of the devil.

I disagree, because I would say that just as someone can say anything they want is the “truth”, so too someone can claim “Christ” for whatever cause or idea they like.

Or, you mention how it’s “simply a matter of who is in control of saying what truth is”, but don’t people take the Lord’s name in the same fashion, just as easily as they do the word “truth”?

Or, haven’t you heard anyone use rhetoric like, “Oh, you don’t agree with me on such-and-such? Well that’s okay, it just means you believe that Christ was liar.”

Wow.
Makes me wonder what Christ was talking about: “The Truth shall set you free”, “Your Word is Truth”

That the notion of “truth” can and often has been abused- no argument.

Quite right. It’s like that old saying, that the existence of counterfeit money doesn’t disprove real money.

 

[Peter_J]

Infallibility ? That’s nothing to do with truth - Infallibility, whether of pope, Church, Councils, or bishops, does not require truth, but only the appearance of something that looks like it for practical purposes. As long as an infallible doctrine can seem infallible because it presents no known difficulties, it’s infallible - that it may in the long run be nonsense or false, is not adverted to.

Concerning infallibility …

As explained by Bishop Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church:

But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole Church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical: Ephesus in 449, for example, or the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, or Florence in 1438-9. Yet these councils seem in no way different in outward appearance from the Ecumenical Councils. What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?

This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. There are, so it must be admitted, certain points in the Orthodox theology of Councils which remain obscure and which call for further thinking on the part of theologians. With this caution in mind, let us briefly consider the present trend of Orthodox thought on this subject.

To the question how one can know whether a council is ecumenical, Khomiakov and his school gave an answer which at first sight appears clear and straightforward: a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church. Florence, Hieria, and the rest, while ecumenical in outward appearance, are not truly so, precisely because they failed to secure this acceptance by the Church at large. (One might object: What about Chalcedon? It was rejected by Syria and Egypt — can we say, then, that it was ‘accepted by the Church at large’?) The bishops, so Khomiakov argued, because they are the teachers of the faith, define and proclaim the truth in council; but these definitions must then be acclaimed by the whole people of God, including the laity, because it is the whole people of God that constitutes the guardian of Tradition. This emphasis on the need for councils to be received by the Church at large has been viewed with suspicion by some Orthodox theologians, both Greek and Russian, who fear that Khomiakov and his followers have endangered the prerogatives of the episcopate and ‘democratized’ the idea of the Church. But in a qualified and carefully guarded form, Khomiakov’s view is now fairly widely accepted in contemporary Orthodox thought.

This act of acceptance, this reception of councils by the Church as a whole, must not be understood in a juridical sense: ‘It does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or that it has not: that is all’ (S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church , p. 89).

At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived .

It is not merely the numbers or the distribution of its members which determines the ecumenicity of a council: ‘An ‘Ecumenical’ Council is such, not because accredited representatives of all the Autocephalous Churches have taken part in it, but because it has borne witness to the faith of the Ecumenical Church’ (Metropolitan Seraphim, L’Église orthodoxe , p. 51).

The ecumenicity of a council cannot be decided by outward criteria alone: ‘Truth can have no external criterion, for it is manifest of itself and made inwardly plain’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church , p. 188). The infallibility of the Church must not be ‘exteriorized,’ nor understood in too ‘material’ a sense: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’ It is not enough to summon an ‘Ecumenical Council’ … it is also necessary that in the midst of those so assembled there should be present He who said: " I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Without this presence, however numerous and representative the assembly may be, it will not be in the truth. Protestants and Catholics usually fail to understand this fundamental truth of Orthodoxy: both materialize the presence of God in the Church — the one party in the letter of Scripture, the other in the person of the Pope — though they do not thereby avoid the miracle, but clothe it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the Church, leading it in the way of the Truth’ (J. Meyendorff, quoted by M. J. le Guillou, Missio et Unité, Paris, 1960, vol. 2, p. 313).