Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JPayne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joseph_L_Varga said:
This is different from the Catholic position, because apparently OCA permits the use of physical barrier and surgical methods that prevent fertilization.
Click to expand...
Since you are very interested in the subject of ABC, you have been asked more than once to start a thread. But you choose to continue your derailment.

START A THREAD!
 
Joseph_L_Varga said:
but one of them says that ABC is gravely evil and a mortal sin, while the other says that ABC is permissible if it doesn’t harm a foetus
Click to expand...
Start a thread!
Joseph_L_Varga said:
Both Bishops cannot be right at the same time.
Click to expand...
Would you like members here to begin posting examples of RC bishops contradicting eachother? Please stop your silly games.
Joseph_L_Varga said:
If we want to re-unite the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, we will have to come to a common understanding of who or what is that rocksolid foundation of the Church, .
Click to expand...
That would be our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Joseph_L_Varga said:
Finally, the ABC debacle…
Click to expand...
Start a thread!
 
Mickey, I had a point to make: that both the Protestants and EO “innovated” in the 20th century, and they have fallen in error by approving the use of artificial birth control; and the CC came mighty close to falling into the same error, but the Pope saved the CC by upholding the ban against the recommendations of large numbers of Bishops and Priests who wanted to permit ABC. It’s a good example of the benefits that come from submitting to the Pope’s authority. Had the EO Churches submitted to the Pope, he would have prevented them from falling into error, just as he prevented the CC from falling into error. I hope you agree with me that OCA is in error, since it now allows ABC which was universally forbidden throughout Christianity for nearly 2000 years.
 
Mickey said:
Start a thread!
Click to expand...
You keep using that phrase … I do not think that it means what you think it means.

Okay, but seriously, I was just looking for our existing threads about the topic, but I didn’t have a lot of luck. So maybe starting a new thread is, in fact, the way to go.
 
As others have said, the filioque is one area of conflict; but I’d like to add that I also see it as a very hopeful area. In particular, The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue? (An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, 2003) was seen by many as a large step toward reconciliation on this issue.

For those who haven’t read it and don’t feel like reading a 10,000 word document, let me quote the recommendations made at the end of the document:

IV. Recommendations

We are aware that the problem of the theology of the Filioque , and its use in the Creed, is not simply an issue between the Catholic and Orthodox communions. Many Protestant Churches, too, drawing on the theological legacy of the Medieval West, consider the term to represent an integral part of the orthodox Christian confession. Although dialogue among a number of these Churches and the Orthodox communion has already touched on the issue, any future resolution of the disagreement between East and West on the origin of the Spirit must involve all those communities that profess the Creed of 381 as a standard of faith. Aware of its limitations, our Consultation nonetheless makes the following theological and practical recommendations to the members and the bishops of our own Churches:
  • that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;
  • that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
  • that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
  • that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
  • that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
    that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
  • that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
  • that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
We offer these recommendations to our Churches in the conviction, based on our own intense study and discussion, that our traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit need no longer divide us. We believe, rather, that our profession of the ancient Creed of Constantinople must be allowed to become, by our uniform practice and our new attempts at mutual understanding, the basis for a more conscious unity in the one faith that all theology simply seeks to clarify and to deepen. Although our expression of the truth God reveals about his own Being must always remain limited by the boundaries of human understanding and human words, we believe that it is the very “Spirit of truth,” whom Jesus breathes upon his Church, who remains with us still, to “guide us into all truth” (John 16.13). We pray that our Churches’ understanding of this Spirit may no longer be a scandal to us, or an obstacle to unity in Christ, but that the one truth towards which he guides us may truly be “a bond of peace” (Eph 4.3), for us and for all Christians.
 
Peter_J said:
Okay, but seriously, I was just looking for our existing threads about the topic, but I didn’t have a lot of luck. So maybe starting a new thread is, in fact, the way to go.
Click to expand...
Yes. There have been exhaustive threads on the subject–everything from the role of spiritual direction to NFP as a form of birth control (where are the threads?).

But Joseph is obssessed with the subject as he attempts to “make his point” so perhaps he should start a new one. 🙂
 
Mickey said:
But Joseph is obsessed with the subject as he attempts to “make his point” so perhaps he should start a new one. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, nothing wrong with having a strong interest in a particular topic. I myself have been on a bit of a Scott Hahn kick lately – some my say that I’ve been “obsessed” with him. 🙂 😊
 
Peter_J said:
In particular, The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue? (An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, 2003) was seen by many as a large step toward reconciliation on this issue.
Click to expand...
The said private opinion of two Orthodox hierarchs and four laymen from North American Continent is simply ignored by Orthodox.

Regardless their well intentions, and the recommendation not to speculate about the inner life of Holy Trinity (something that was never understood by RC), which would have to cause abandonment of filioque (and the underlying theology), they simply stepped beyond the Church’s teaching. Sadly, they mislead RCs as yourself about Orthodox position.
 
Harpazo said:
:o Your uncharitable comments do not advance this discussion whatsoever. Do you have a bone to pick with the Orthodox and I just seemed like an easy target? 😛

I didn’t know that you were an Orthodox Bishop and could speak on behalf of us. My apologies, Your Grace! :bowdown2:

I am sorry, but you dvdjs, are wrong. The Orthodox do not accept abortion and contraception. The only way contraception would be permitted, would be for the same reasons that a Catholic priest would permit it. You know this.

As for the official statement, you too, know that the Orthodox do not have a Pope (we have done just fine without one). However, ask any Orthodox Bishop, and you will get the Orthodox position. It’s what they do. 👍

If in the future, you feel like making fantastical claims like this, dvdjs, please spare us.
Click to expand...
Harpazo:

My post was direct in pointing out that you are in error, but no more than yours to Louie 1983, or for that matter to me. It was directed to your comments, not to “Orthodox”.

I have not made any fantastical claims not have I claimed that Orthodox “accept abortion and contraception”. I am happy that Joseph Varga has already pointed out the falsehood of your assimilating Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on contraception, and, moreover, pointed out the change in Orthodox teaching in the 20th century.

I think the advice that one should endeavor to learn fully before one tries to teach, is sound and not uncharitable.
 
dvdjs said:
I am happy that Joseph Varga has already pointed out the falsehood of your assimilating Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on contraception, and, moreover, pointed out the change in Orthodox teaching in the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Are you always “happy” with false information? Furthermore, I will repeat what I keep telling Joseph if you are also interested in the subject----START A THREAD! 👍
 
eOxy said:
The said private opinion of two Orthodox hierarchs and four laymen from North American Continent is simply ignored by Orthodox.

Regardless their well intentions, and the recommendation not to speculate about the inner life of Holy Trinity (something that was never understood by RC), which would have to cause abandonment of filioque (and the underlying theology), they simply stepped beyond the Church’s teaching. Sadly, they mislead RCs as yourself about Orthodox position.
Click to expand...
Hi eOxy. Your post comes as little surprise: I hear pretty much the same thing from a few of my fellow Catholics, only in reverse.

You realize, of course, that I’m inclined to take your statements as the ‘private opinion of zero Orthodox hierarchs and one layman from wherever-you’re-from’?
 
I don’t see either church ever reuniting. Period.

One of two things could happen, I suppose:
  1. One church must subsume the other.
  2. God will have to undo the laws of logic itself and have two different sets of opinions somehow mean the same thing (ie, 2 = 3 will have to be correct).
I’m surprised at a lot of the posts in this thread. “Well, if the hierarchs would just try and communicate and let go of their pride, then…” Let go of what? There’ still the fact that both churches are almost diametrically opposed to the other and nothing short of God undoing the laws of logic will make a reconciliation happen.

Then again, I may just be an agnostic pessimist, so my opinion amounts to nothing.

😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top