Precisely what sort of unity do you want?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sixpence
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sixpence said:
US and UK are way past any questions of unity and are only focused on friendship at this point.
Click to expand...
Interesting way to think about it. In the Word’s of His Grace Kallistos Ware, “Our love has grown cold”.
 
Sixpence said:
Full unity, of course. I know. But more precisely, do you insist on autonomous unity to the exclusion of autocephalous unity? Would you be entirely accepting of a union in which some Eastern churches are autocephalous? Would you take some middle road, where autocephaly is tolerated as what you hope would be a transitory phase en route to autonomy? Basically, to what extent is an autpcephalous union acceptable to you- or, in fact, a thing that you would readily call full unity?

And perhaps more importantly, your precise desires are in view of what, exactly, as far as Catholic history prior to the Schism? Is it your understanding that the Eastern churches and the Western church spent a thousand years in an autonomous sort of union…or an autocephalous sort of union?

This is an important distinction at either end. Everyone wants unity, but it helps a lot when you get a lot more precise than that. More precise looks like saying autocephaly is unacceptable, it must be an autonomous relationship, and the bonds between Eastern Orthodox churches must be eliminated so that only autonomous relationships exist with Rome- and this is done in view of what you believe to be a thousand year history of a strictly autonomous setup. Just one example. As another example, perhaps you favor an autocephalous relationship between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox- in view of a long history of autocephaly when last you had full communion- and you would do this at risk of changing the landscape of Eastern Catholicism by losing the people who prefer autocephaly to autonomy, which could wind up being all of them.

The short version: Precisely what unity is it that you want in terms of autonomy and autocephaly, and in view of what sort of first-millennium union? Autonomous or autocephalous?

I’m especially curious to see if anyone wants to say y’all used to be autocephalous toward each other but now that’s somehow unacceptable. There’s an explanation behind that one that really needs to get out there, but I don’t know if anyone really wants to say that. This is why it helps me when people get more precise than usual for a minute, and this is why I ask for it.

Thank you all, much obliged, and I certainly hope that ECs and EO have much to say as well. And if there’s better ways to be precise than this, I am wide open to suggestions.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what would any kind of reunion between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox mean to you, as an Evangelical?
 
AlwaysCurious said:
Just out of curiosity, what would any kind of reunion between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox mean to you, as an Evangelical?
Click to expand...
I wonder too. The OP doesn’t sound like an Evangelical at all, and I mean that in a good way. I wish all Evangelicals were more like the OP.

Also, I laughed at your nickname and your ‘just out of curiosity’ line. Nomen est omen.
 
AlwaysCurious said:
Just out of curiosity, what would any kind of reunion between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox mean to you, as an Evangelical?
Click to expand...
I’ll also be intersted in Sixpence’s response, but in the meantime here’s something interesting …
Father Richard John Neuhaus eloquently spoke for this Roman Catholic assessment at the Rose Hill Conference in South Carolina last May, when he declared that the only thing really separating the two groups was the bare act of removing the separation. Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”
Click to expand...
 
AlwaysCurious said:
Just out of curiosity, what would any kind of reunion between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox mean to you, as an Evangelical?
Click to expand...
I think it would mean Catholicism gets a lot bigger and, well, closer to universal. You can hardly call a church “universal” if it includes just one rite, yes? Which is how the CC was until fairly recently- then when it became 27 churches enjoying some form of autonomous communion with each other, that was a step toward being more universal. And the inclusion of 15 more churches in some form of autocephalous communion would be an even bigger step- more than just the addition of the parts, too. For quite a few Evangelicals, all or nearly all of what they want out of an ancient church is found somewhere within Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but not all in one place. If I could borrow from ByzCathCantor for a moment, there are strengths and weaknesses in both, and autocephaly combined with Catholicism combined with Eastern Orthodoxy could be the right combination that gets a fair number of influential Evangelicals in there. For some of us, we just need to have the impression that Catholicism (in this hypothetical, Catholicism plus Orthodoxy) is big/inclusive enough for us and that we have something to do once we’re there that involves forging our own identity. Rome gets an identity, Greece gets an identity, Russia gets an identity, and America should have its own identity too. To me, autocephaly looks like the best thing that would give us hope, along with a fairly compelling reason to be in union with you guys.

This is America. People like me are American Evangelicals. If we wind up in union with the Catholic and/or Orthodox church in big numbers, on a large scale, and for a sustained period of time, that doesn’t happen by getting us to land in Rome or in Greece or in Russia and start calling that home. America is our home, you must carve out a place in America that can be in union with both of you, and the best way to get it done is by working together. If you don’t, we carve out our place quite apart from you guys and send missionaries all over the world so it happens other places too.

I’d say that’s what it means to me, as an Evangelical.
 
Sixpence said:
I think it would mean Catholicism gets a lot bigger and, well, closer to universal. You can hardly call a church “universal” if it includes just one rite, yes? Which is how the CC was until fairly recently
Click to expand...
You call the 12th century fairly recent? That’s the time the Maronites re-established communion with Rome.
 
Shiranui117 said:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese of the USA!

acrod.org
Click to expand...
With which I am well acquainted, yet this is not the Church of origin for Ruthenian Catholics. It is indeed logical that a merger might be contemplated in event of Catholic-Orthodox reunion, but again, this is “sorta” the reverse case of other Eastern Catholic Churches. We’d be more closely associated with the Ukrainian Orthodox in this regard (as likely would ACROD).
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Originally Posted by Sixpence
I think it would mean Catholicism gets a lot bigger and, well, closer to universal. You can hardly call a church “universal” if it includes just one rite, yes? Which is how the CC was until fairly recently
Click to expand...
Actually, going a step further, we should remember that there were many different Western rites before the Council of Trent (and technically still are, although they were greatly restricted by Trent).
Click to expand...
 
Sixpence said:
I see what you’re saying, although I would probably go in more of a European Union …
Click to expand...
An interesting take, one that suggests a new form of interdependent, common governance that still respects the sovereignty of its member nations …
 
John_of_Patmos said:
I think entropy plays a big part in the “not reunited” ordeal.
Click to expand...
GaryTaylor said:
I agree.
Click to expand...
Me too, in a way, and enjoyed the use of a term from the law of thermodynamics in this case 😃

As much as I dare say it, I do think even Pope Benedict XVI has become more entrenched in other areas and with other pressing concerns, and some of his own zeal for the cause and sake of reunion is not as evident of late (not to suggest that he has lost it, of course).
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Me too, in a way, and enjoyed the use of a term from the law of thermodynamics in this case 😃

As much as I dare say it, I do think even Pope Benedict XVI has become more entrenched in other areas and with other pressing concerns, and some of his own zeal for the cause and sake of reunion is not as evident of late (not to suggest that he has lost it, of course).
Click to expand...
Exactly, no doubt evil has its agenda also. I believe this has become the intentional distraction by evil. Communion brings the Supernatural Blessing, and evil will fight this tooth and nail.
 
Sixpence said:
I think it would mean Catholicism gets a lot bigger and, well, closer to universal. You can hardly call a church “universal” if it includes just one rite, yes? Which is how the CC was until fairly recently- then when it became 27 churches enjoying some form of autonomous communion with each other, that was a step toward being more universal. And the inclusion of 15 more churches in some form of autocephalous communion would be an even bigger step- more than just the addition of the parts, too. For quite a few Evangelicals, all or nearly all of what they want out of an ancient church is found somewhere within Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but not all in one place. If I could borrow from ByzCathCantor for a moment, there are strengths and weaknesses in both, and autocephaly combined with Catholicism combined with Eastern Orthodoxy could be the right combination that gets a fair number of influential Evangelicals in there. For some of us, we just need to have the impression that Catholicism (in this hypothetical, Catholicism plus Orthodoxy) is big/inclusive enough for us and that we have something to do once we’re there that involves forging our own identity. Rome gets an identity, Greece gets an identity, Russia gets an identity, and America should have its own identity too. To me, autocephaly looks like the best thing that would give us hope, along with a fairly compelling reason to be in union with you guys.

This is America. People like me are American Evangelicals. If we wind up in union with the Catholic and/or Orthodox church in big numbers, on a large scale, and for a sustained period of time, that doesn’t happen by getting us to land in Rome or in Greece or in Russia and start calling that home. America is our home, you must carve out a place in America that can be in union with both of you, and the best way to get it done is by working together. If you don’t, we carve out our place quite apart from you guys and send missionaries all over the world so it happens other places too.

I’d say that’s what it means to me, as an Evangelical.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your response. Having come from an evangelical background myself, I would be hard-pressed to find many among my evangelical friends and relatives who could even say what Orthodoxy is, let alone express any concern over reunion. So I echo others who have thanked you for your interest and tone.

Since becoming Catholic, I have wondered if there are any implications for Protestants if Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy move closer to reunion, and if so, what they are. I’m sure they would vary from one person or group to another.

During my RCIA days, I was engaged in a long-lasting email discussion about Catholicism and my conversion with a fundamentalist pastor (father of a girl I had been dating). Near the end of our (rather fruitless) discussion, he quipped that he didn’t think the dialogue between Catholics and Protestants was really the most important “conversation” in Christianity anyway. I remember thinking that, even though this wasn’t what he meant, I agreed with him–that the conversation between Catholics and the Orthodox was more important (to me, anyway).
 
AlwaysCurious said:
II remember thinking that, even though this wasn’t what he meant, I agreed with him–that the conversation between Catholics and the Orthodox was more important (to me, anyway).
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose some protestants are becoming very interested in Orthodoxy? Is it because it is less dogmatic?
 
TrueLight said:
Why do you suppose some protestants are becoming very interested in Orthodoxy? Is it because it is less dogmatic?
Click to expand...
Probably (don’t get angry with me Orthodox users) because Orthodoxy is an Apostolic Church that is simply “not Rome”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top