Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?

[Harpazo]

Should the two Churches reunite, would you put your complete trust in Christ and follow your Church and the reunited Church?

Here’s an article on the Ravenna Talks. They discuss how talks are getting places, but reunification is still a while off, and in God’s time.

For Catholics and Orthodox, for the reunited Church, would you accept all the terms of their reunification? Even if it meant some sort of change in custom, liturgy, defining more deeply a doctrine or dogma etc? I personally would accept it all without exception, because if I didn’t, I personally would feel like I were betraying Christ, Our Lord.

What say the rest of you and why?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Rocky]

It would be a great blessing if East and West Christians were to reunite. And as a Catholic, I would trust Christ working through His Church to bring it into unity.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I pray for the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

It’s a strange scenario.

If the Pope told us to reunite with the Orthodox, then I would. But then, that would be the last time I’d be listening to the Pope.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Hey, I lived through all the bizarre experimentation in the US after Vatican II. If the pope and the bishops in union with him say to unite, I know it would be OK and I would be much happier about it than I was back then, and just as obedient. I hope God lets me see it in my lifetime.

 

[Alexius]

Reunion at what cost? I can almost guarantee there will never be reunion for one simple reason: Papal Infallibility. Everything else can be worked out except this dogma. Some have advocated a position of granting Patriarchs a share of this infallibility or a decision, but that is against the declaration of the dogma. On top of that, the Patriarchs will not accept infallibility for themselves because it is not a true teaching…So, if Rome isn’t ready to withdraw Papal Infallibility, I don’t see a reunion.

It may be worth considering that perhaps we should remain how we are. Both sides are content to not compromise on the their respective teachings and the churches would certainly suffer major schisms if reunion took place, so why not?

PS. The Ravenna declaration is nothing new. The Orthodox have always recognized the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome–Primacy of honor…I’m not sure that is progress.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[VARC]

Reunion at what cost? I can almost guarantee there will never be reunion for one simple reason: Papal Infallibility.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

You are abosolutely correct. The orthodox are actually pretty flexible if someone wants to maintain most theological opinions.

Fire of purgatory. I don’t believe it but I respect your opinion.

Indulgences. I don’t buy it but I’m not going to throw a fit if someone wants to believe that praying the rosary relases their grandmother from the fires of purgatory

Immaculate Conception. Again, don’t believe it but I don’t have a problem with the theological speculation.

Primacy. Depends what you mean by that. The Ecumenical Patriarch holds the primacy in the OC right now but he would be willing to recognize the primacy of Rome if there was reunification. If the pope’s primacy was that of the EC, a leader of his brethren but not an absolute monarch, then that would be okay I guess.

Creed. The creed is actually a big deal so there would have to be much discussion that would have to happen but it won’t even get that far because of the next issue…

Papal infallibility. Never. This beliefs pretty much cancels any dialogue because it excludes the possibility of flexibility on Rome’s side. It demands that the orthodox must submit to every single theological speculation that the pope has signed on to without giving conscietious dissenters the right to disagree. It is completely foreign to the conciliar nature of the Church of the 1st millenium. That is why Cardinal Kasper knows that it will be “very difficult” to get the Orthodox to go along with it.

Every other problem could actually be very easily overcome. The EO and the OO are all but officially reunited. But papal infallibility has made the schism permanent. “Rome is right no matter what and all Christians must submit to her.”

So the ball is in Rome’s court. Would you retract infallibility as a dogma and lower it to the status of an opinion?

If so them maybe something could be worked out. If not, then don’t blame the Orthodox for the schism. You guys “developed” that dogma 100s of years after the schism so don’t expect orthodox to accept it because it will never happen. This is the impasse. All dialogue should cease and reunification should never be seriously considered again if Rome isn’t flexible on this issue.

I’m going to delay voting in this poll until I get a good idea where the catholic position is on this.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… So the ball is in Rome’s court. Would you retract infallibility as a dogma and lower it to the status of an opinion?

If so them maybe something could be worked out. If not, then don’t blame the Orthodox for the schism. You guys “developed” that dogma 100s of years after the schism so don’t expect orthodox to accept it because it will never happen…

Defining a dogma doesn’t make it “suddenly” true. It just means that we always believed it to be true.

But, if the Pope is willing to admit that this dogma is wrong, then I have no choice but to be Orthodox. Until then.

 

[Alexius]

I am being 100% honest when I say that I truly wish the dogma of Papal Infallibility had never been declared… A simple “Church Infallibility” would have been more than adaquate.

 

[VARC]

Defining a dogma doesn’t make it “suddenly” true. It just means that we always believed it to be true.

But, if the Pope is willing to admit that this dogma is wrong, then I have no choice but to be Orthodox. Until then.

Trust me on this, NOBODY in the pre-schism church, certainly no one in the east, believed that the bishop of Rome himself was infallible. That idea came much later whether you want to believe it or not.

And you kind of answered my question. Catholics are intent on circling the wagons to defend papal infallibility because to give it up (in their minds) would mean the surrender of their religion. As if going to the pre-1870 Catholic Church would be the end of their faith. The schism is permanent. Alexius, choose your side.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Trust me on this, NOBODY in the pre-schism church, certainly no one in the east, believed that the bishop of Rome himself was infallible. That idea came much later whether you want to believe it or not.

And you kind of answered my question. Catholics are intent on circling the wagons to defend papal infallibility because to give it up (in their minds) would mean the surrender of their religion. As if going to the pre-1870 Catholic Church would be the end of their faith. The schism is permanent. Alexius, choose your side.

But therein lies the problem; Why would I trust you? No offence. But for every piece of evidence the Orthodox have, I’ve seen counter evidence from the Catholics. Go figure.

Going to the pre-1870 Catholic Church will not end our faith; It may be just denying history.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Trust me on this, NOBODY in the pre-schism church, certainly no one in the east, believed that the bishop of Rome himself was infallible.

Now, why would I trust you instead of my Mother and Teacher, the Holy Catholic Church?! To trust you instead of Mother Church would be foolishness of the highest order!!!

I trust my Mother and Teacher and nobody else.

 

[Mickey]

And you kind of answered my question. Catholics are intent on circling the wagons to defend papal infallibility because to give it up (in their minds) would mean the surrender of their religion.

Yes. It is shocking when one discovers that it was always the Church council that was infallible speaking through the Holy Spirit with all bishops being equal.

When Pius IX succeeded in pushing the dogma of supreme papal infallibility, it ended the purpose of any future councils in the West. The Pope is now the council.

 

[mardukm]

Yes. It is shocking when one discovers that it was always the Church council that was infallible speaking through the Holy Spirit with all bishops being equal.

When Pius IX succeeded in pushing the dogma of supreme papal infallibility, it ended the purpose of any future councils in the West. The Pope is now the council.

Oh PLEASE! You know very well that the ultimate authority in Eastern Orthodoxy is mob rule!

Such a witty reply deserves an equally witty reply.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Oh PLEASE! You know very well that the ultimate authority in Eastern Orthodoxy is mob rule!

Your written insults are meaningless.

 

[mardukm]

Your written insults are meaningless.

You sure are sensitive nowadays, brother Mickey. I took your statement “the Pope is now the Council” for what it was without feeling insulted. I parry with a similar statement jokingly and now you cry “insult”?

The point is that people should criticize a Church on what she teaches and what she teaches about herself. What you stated was clearly wrong.

As a sincere Christian exhortation, I urge you not to be hypocritical.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

As a sincere Christian exhortation, I urge you not to be hypocritical.

I urge the same to you, my friend.

A council which proclaims the pope’s infallible power in the church ex sese, sine consensu ecclesiae commits a self-contradictory, unmeaning and suicidal action which is a reductio ad absurdum of the council as such.

 

[mardukm]

I urge the same to you, my friend.

A council which proclaims the pope’s infallible power in the church ex sese, sine consensu ecclesiae commits a self-contradictory, unmeaning and suicidal action which is a reductio ad absurdum of the council as such.

If you truly understood what the Council meant and what papal infallibility actually is, you would not be making such statements.

The difference between our statements is that I was joking, while you were serious. But it is a fine line for one to not take my joke as a joke, given the actual evidence of history and even today within Eastern Orthodoxy.

On the other hand, the Pope has always acted collegially, and your comment is completely without merit, based on a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches about herself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

If you truly understood what the Council meant and what papal infallibility actually is, you would not be making such statements.

Oh I understand alright. That is why I can make such statements.

The difference between our statements is that I was joking, while you were serious.

I usually do not joke around when it comes to doctrinal innovations.

given the actual evidence of history and even today within Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yes, the history speaks for itself, yet you an I see two different conclusions.

On the other hand, the Pope has always acted collegially, and your comment is completely without merit, based on a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches about herself.

It is very simple. The bishop of Rome always maintained a seat of honor. That is never disputed. But no one, and I mean no one–in a hundred lifetimes–could convince me that the Pope of Rome always held a power of supreme authority and infallibility. This was an innovation from Rome which saw its culmination in the VI council–a doctrine which many (who participated in that council) opposed.

But that is for another thread.

 

[zagjames]

Reunion at what cost? I can almost guarantee there will never be reunion for one simple reason: Papal Infallibility. Everything else can be worked out except this dogma. Some have advocated a position of granting Patriarchs a share of this infallibility or a decision, but that is against the declaration of the dogma. On top of that, the Patriarchs will not accept infallibility for themselves because it is not a true teaching…So, if Rome isn’t ready to withdraw Papal Infallibility, I don’t see a reunion.

But if a true eccumenical council was conviened and both sides said yes this is true teaching. Or even if they just ratified all councils since the schism, and created new proclimations on anything that contracdicted. In other words If an eccumenical council(of both east and west) infallibly declared it to be true (as we Catholics already believe) then would that not solve the issue?

It may be worth considering that perhaps we should remain how we are. Both sides are content to not compromise on the their respective teachings and the churches would certainly suffer major schisms if reunion took place, so why not?

The way I think it would happen is that a majority of Orthodox would come over but the Russian Church would hold out, any other groups within other Orthodox Churches that wanted to hold out would restart their Churhes(as most of the heirarchs would then be in the Catholic Church) and they would fall behind the Russian Patriarch who would claim the title of Eccumenical Patriarch. On the Catholic side any schism that would happen would not worry me, It would mostly be liberal catholics who hate traditionalism that would run off, but even then I dont think they would.

PS. The Ravenna declaration is nothing new. The Orthodox have always recognized the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome–Primacy of honor…I’m not sure that is progress.

The Fact that it was a statement by both sides is the progress. The Orthodox have said yeah sure Rome holds primacy for as long as theyve been around, but this was the first face to face meeting where it was officially regocnized in Eccumenical dialogue. So it is progress, word games maybe, but it is still progress, because it shows visible agreeance on an important issue. So while it is nothing new, neither is that cool box of stuff in the back of your attic, but when you dust it off and lay it out on the table it sure is a conversation starter.

Even if we never become one church until Christ’s coming, it would sure be great if we could work together better.