Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches?

[Joseph_L_Varga]

LOL, Mickey, I agree. Probably the Bishops on both sides are faced with the same issue: Orthodox Bishops interpret the Bible as not meaning that Peter should be infallible and have universal jurisdiction. Thus, they believe that Rome has fallen into heresy and left true Orthodoxy. Catholic Bishops, on the other hand, interpret the same passages in the Bible to mean that Peter is infallible and does have universal jurisdiction (because he can bind and loose unconditionally, he has alone the keys to heaven, Jesus prayed for him alone that his faith would not fail - Mt16,18, Lk22,31), and consequently, Catholic Bishops believe that it is the Orthodox who have fallen into error. And then, I guess, there are those who change their minds and convert from Catholic to Orthodox or the other way around.

 

[Hesychios]

… I think that would be pretty interesting scenario if the next pope was Greek or Russian. I think that there would be a better chance of something benificial happening if they happened to be Greek. Arent they the “closest” to Rome as far as talks and cooperating for certain things?

God bless,
Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Actually, I am pretty sure the exact opposite would be true. It would more than anything else offend the Orthodox, as the very concept of eastern Catholicism (and the whole bitter history of how that came about) is an open wound. The Orthodox would not make any moves that might be misinterpreted as validating the Eastern Catholic schisms (there were several unhappy experiences). So relations, while cordial, would be decidedly cool until that Pope passed on.

 

[SedesDomi]

The Latin Assumption and the Orthodox Dormition are not exactly the same. In the Latin Church, Mary did not have original sin, thus she did not need to die. If she did die, then she freely chose to die, for reasons that need not be discussed here, and was then resurrected and assumed. If she did not die, then she was assumed directly. (Catholics may believe in either theory.) In Orthodoxy, Mary suffered from Adam/Eve’s original sin just like the rest of us, thus Mary could not avoid death. Mary died, was resurrected, and was then was taken up into heaven.

Regarding the re-union of Rome and Orthodoxy, I have three simple words.

Not

Gonna

Happen.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I seem to remember that Cardinals can also choose a Pope from someone who is not a Cardinal himself, and that they at least once chose some obscure priest who was holy but not high on the hierarchy. If this is correct, the next Pope could come from anywhere, literally, where there are Catholic priests. I wonder, if through some inspiration by the Holy Spirit, the Cardinals were to choose a Russian Pope or Greek Pope from the small Catholic communities in Russia and Greece (probably less than 1% in those countries are Catholics), would that bring closer the Orthodox and Catholic Christians to each other?

Acutally the Cardinals acan elect any CAthlic male of age. He would not have to be a priest at the time of his Elections. nor would he even have to be Roman Cathlic Just a catholic male of age. Then at that time he would then be ordained as a Priest Bishop and Pope all at the same time. If he was from a Eastern tradition he would also have to change Rites as he even thos head of the Entire Church he would be a Latin Bishop. At least that is my understanding if I am in error please feel free to correct me.

 

[ahollars]

It’s a great sentiment but you have to ask yourself a question. On what issues would the Catholic Church be willing to compromise? Would she compromise on Papal Infallibility, Papal supremacy or the Immaculate Conception? Or is it more likely that both Churches expect the other side to accept their position before reunification could occur? Where are they willing to budge?

If both sides believe that the Church is infallible then to compromise would make a lie out of the lives of one or the other Churches. I don’t think either side is willing to accept that.

Yours in Christ
Joe

That’s technically only half the story. Catholics do not have a problem with the Orthodox professing to be the true Church, because the Orthodox do accept the early Church Councils as infallible. To the degree that both are right, I do not know if the Orthodox communion has declared anything infallible that Rome disagrees with. It is not a lie on Rome’s part for them to admit that the Orthodox profess the truth, because the truth was united at the time. Rome has declared dogmas since the divide. The Orthodox would lose nothing in accepting the positions of Rome, since the doctrines in question do not require them to give up anything, but rather only to accept something new that was divine mystery before. The bigger picture is the submission to Rome’s authority and infallibility. Rome will never compromise on that. Which does beg the question, why is there a divide anyways? At the time of the split, there were no doctrinal issues that separated the two, only the question of the Pope’s authority itself. Rome is the reason for the split, and Rome will be the reason for the reunion. This is why we have permission to share in each others communions when our own is not available. As serious as it is for non-Catholics to not receive, we should all remember why we are allowed to receive with our Orthodox brethren.

Someone please expand…

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Scott, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, I wasn’t aware of this.

If a Russian or Greek Pope from the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches were to be elected next, or perhaps someone from Syria (ancient Antioch) or Egypt (Alexandria), this in my opinion would only illustrate the fact that anyone who is Catholic is potentially eligible to be the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles. And in fact, I’m pretty sure we had Popes from Africa and Asia Minor, in addition to Europe, during the history of the Catholic Church. I’ve read that definitely two, but perhaps three of our Popes were black people. I guess some of them could have been from Africa. Maybe some Orthodox people wouldn’t be happy to see an Eastern Rite Catholic Bishop from, say, Greece, Russia, or the Ukraine ascend to the Papal throne, but I still hope that others would just see how the Catholic Church is truly universal and it’s not about national cliques. Of course, as the American elections proved that electing someone into a position of President or Supreme Court just because he is black or she is a “wise Latina woman” borders on the ridiculous, I hope the Catholic Church will never elect a Pope just because he is black, Russian, or whatever. But on the other hand, I fully understand when the Catholic Church goes about its own life oblivious to the fact that the Orthodox Churches may not agree with its decisions. I mean, when Pope JP II appointed some Catholic bishops to serve the Russian Catholics in Russian territory, he was only tending to his flock there. The Eastern Orthodox do exactly the same thing when they appoint Bishops to tend for their flock in countries such as Italy, France, Austria, Haiti, or Brazil, and we Catholics do not get offended about it. And if the next Pope happens to be Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, or Syrian, I believe the decision of the Cardinals won’t be about reopening any real or imaginary wounds on the Eastern Orthodox side.

 

[Hesychios]

… Rome has declared dogmas since the divide. The Orthodox would lose nothing in accepting the positions of Rome, since the doctrines in question do not require them to give up anything, but rather only to accept something new…

Have you no idea how abominable that is?

The Vincentian Canon:

"Care must especially be exercised that what is held by us was believed everywhere, always, and by all "
Vincent of of Lérins

 

[ahollars]

Have you no idea how abominable that is?

Apparently not.

FTR, I was referring to the Marian Doctrines. The Orthodox love Our Lady to a level that we should be following. Remember Zeitun? Only half of Catholics even appreciate Her. As for the Immaculate Conception, if you could create your own mother, wouldn’t you make her perfect? I don’t think it’s not that far-fetched.

Why do Orthodox recognize the early Church Councils, but the recent councils have been denounced as heresy just for having them? Why haven’t the Orthodox held any Councils of their own?

If the answer is, “they are not necessary”, then that is a whole other issue that has nothing to do with the Pope’s role in the Church.

Our understanding is supposed to expand over time. We don’t have every answer (yet), and our faith is a journey, not a destination. The Councils exist for that reason. What is wrong with the idea of recognizing something new that was a complete mystery before? Isn’t that the very definition of the faith journey?

If that idea is an abomination to the Orthodox Church itself, well then, pardon me.

Perhaps it won’t happen then…

 

[Hesychios]

If a Russian or Greek Pope from the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches were to be elected next, or perhaps someone from Syria (ancient Antioch) or Egypt (Alexandria), this in my opinion would only illustrate the fact that anyone who is Catholic is potentially eligible to be the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

As long as the Orthodox do not see the office of bishop of Rome in the way Latin Catholics think of it, they will not be persuaded.

In other words the office of the Papacy is not as impressive to Orthodox as it is to Roman Catholics, and that might be hard to see at first.

For instance, the fact that Pope Benedict is a German is not impressive enough to German Lutherans to have made any clear movements beyond what we have already seen before. And Pope John Paul II could not, in 25 years in the See, heal the schism with the PNCC.

How much more would this have no impact or even negative impact upon Orthodox who tend to think of Eastern Catholics on something along the lines of Quislings?

And in fact, I’m pretty sure we had Popes from Africa and Asia Minor, in addition to Europe, during the history of the Catholic Church.

There were at least ten Greek bishops of Rome, and (I think) something like seven Syrian bishops of Rome. This was entirely in the first millenium, the “Orthodox Period”. They did not exercise nor even claim Universal Jurisdiction over all the churches. It was not how they saw the position.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi ahollars,

FTR, I was referring to the Marian Doctrines. The Orthodox love Our Lady to a level that we should be following. Remember Zeitun?

If the apparition at Zeitun is real you should note that there were no messages.

Why do Orthodox recognize the early Church Councils, but the recent councils have been denounced as heresy just for having them?

The west can have councils, but they cannot bind the entire church with them.

After the schism the Latin church has had General Councils of the West, on the pattern of Arles.

Why haven’t the Orthodox held any Councils of their own?

Orthodox have had local councils as required. No great doctrinal crises have erupted.

Our understanding is supposed to expand over time.

Why?

 

[SedesDomi]

As for the Immaculate Conception, if you could create your own mother, wouldn’t you make her perfect? I don’t think it’s not that far-fetched.

If by “Immaculate Conception” you mean to say that Mary was conceived free from the effects (death, primarily) of original sin, then Orthodoxy would have a major problem with that.

“The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 – the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God.” Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997.

 

[pipper]

I agree Pipper, the Catholics and Orthodox have some pretty similar ideas about St. Mary. I have heard it said by theologians from both sides that the disagreements might be possible to resolve. Also with the filioque, there are hopes to resolve the conflict. What really stands out as a stumbling block, though, is the different understanding of the role of Pope (Bishop of Rome), as Hesychios also pointed out in his excellent quote.

I just wonder, isn’t the fact that Cardinals of the Catholic Church come from all over the globe, from all twenty-something Catholic (Eastern and Roman) Churches, a proof in Eastern Christians’ eyes that the East and West are equal? I mean, our next Pope could be chosen from anywhere, including from the East Asian, African, Ukrainian, Middle Eastern, European, South American or North American Cardinals.

I think the two ideas that will be insurmountable are the immediate universal jurisdiction of the Pope,(Orthodox have local bishops they are under the authority of, their chain of command goes no further). I think they fear the latinisation that happenend in the Uniate churches, dissapearing icons, no iconostas is what you see in a lot of Eastern Catholic churches. They also fear having the Roman NO liturgy forced on them.

The biggest problem IMHO is the language of submission, that will never fly with Orthodox, they need to be approached as peers, not inferiors.

I think a little humility from both sides instead of triumphalism will go a long way in healing the rupture.

 

[dzheremi]

Apparently not.

FTR, I was referring to the Marian Doctrines. The Orthodox love Our Lady to a level that we should be following. Remember Zeitun? Only half of Catholics even appreciate Her. As for the Immaculate Conception, if you could create your own mother, wouldn’t you make her perfect? I don’t think it’s not that far-fetched.

Why do Orthodox recognize the early Church Councils, but the recent councils have been denounced as heresy just for having them? Why haven’t the Orthodox held any Councils of their own?

I’m not sure what you mean by “councils of their own”, but here is a short listing of Orthodox councils, including pan-Orthodox councils (last one listed in 1627), local councils (last one listed 1872), and one inter-Orthodox congress (1927, about the calendar).

Our understanding is supposed to expand over time.

Not to sound too “Orthodox”-ish, but why? I was taught in RCIA only a few years ago that any official pronouncements of doctrine are made only in those cases when absolutely necessary, as to combat some specific heresy or unacceptable practice, not because we had supposedly “learned more” about the subject at hand. This seems different to me than the assertion that our understanding is supposed to expand as a natural consequence of time and increased understanding about the world, or whatever it is you’re talking about here. I joined the Church with that original explanation in mind (to combat specific heresy, not merely “it’s supposed to happen this way”), and since then I have increasingly wondered if I wasn’t in fact sold a bit of a false picture of how things actually work. I much prefer the original parameters as they were explained to me, which seem much more in line with what I saw when browsing the above list. You know…actual reasons and whatnot.

We don’t have every answer (yet), and our faith is a journey, not a destination. The Councils exist for that reason. What is wrong with the idea of recognizing something new that was a complete mystery before? Isn’t that the very definition of the faith journey?

Forgive me, but what is the difference between this and just making things up as you go along? I left Protestantism to get away from this kind of thinking, where things change on a fairly regular basis in accordance with one’s personal understanding of scripture and what you feel the Holy Spirit is telling you. More to the point, doesn’t a “faith journey” typically NOT include promulgation of doctrine binding on millions of faithful? Again, I guess since I have been under the impression so far that the development of doctrine in Catholicism involves something other than deciding to define what we had been happy to leave undefined in the absence of a pressing need to define it just because, hey, we’re on a journey, I don’t really understand this kind of thinking.

God help me…I am so confused right now.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If by “Immaculate Conception” you mean to say that Mary was conceived free from the effects (death, primarily) of original sin, then Orthodoxy would have a major problem with that.

“The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 – the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God.” Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997.

I do not see how being born without the stain of original sin would remove the Blessed Mother from the human Race. Adam and Eve were both created without it and they were human before they committed it. Christ did not have the the stain of original sin let along with being fully Divine he was fully human. It seems to be a reason to look for differences. To continue the schism and to say you Latins are inventing Dogma.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’m not sure what you mean by “councils of their own”, but here is a short listing of Orthodox councils, including pan-Orthodox councils (last one listed in 1627), local councils (last one listed 1872), and one inter-Orthodox congress (1927, about the calendar).

Not to sound too “Orthodox”-ish, but why? I was taught in RCIA only a few years ago that any official pronouncements of doctrine are made only in those cases when absolutely necessary, as to combat some specific heresy or unacceptable practice, not because we had supposedly “learned more” about the subject at hand. This seems different to me than the assertion that our understanding is supposed to expand as a natural consequence of time and increased understanding about the world, or whatever it is you’re talking about here. I joined the Church with that original explanation in mind (to combat specific heresy, not merely “it’s supposed to happen this way”), and since then I have increasingly wondered if I wasn’t in fact sold a bit of a false picture of how things actually work. I much prefer the original parameters as they were explained to me, which seem much more in line with what I saw when browsing the above list. You know…actual reasons and whatnot.

Forgive me, but what is the difference between this and just making things up as you go along? I left Protestantism to get away from this kind of thinking, where things change on a fairly regular basis in accordance with one’s personal understanding of scripture and what you feel the Holy Spirit is telling you. More to the point, doesn’t a “faith journey” typically NOT include promulgation of doctrine binding on millions of faithful? Again, I guess since I have been under the impression so far that the development of doctrine in Catholicism involves something other than deciding to define what we had been happy to leave undefined in the absence of a pressing need to define it just because, hey, we’re on a journey, I don’t really understand this kind of thinking.

God help me…I am so confused right now.

Council do have different functions. the largest is to combat a heresy. but also such as with the VII was to refine liturgical norms that have nothing to do with Doctrine or Dogma. A council and this is my opinion only is a last resort. and are not just because we are on a journey of understanding. That is why some of these small (for lack of a better word) difference between Catholic and Orthodox have come into being is in a effect to combat the heresies of the many Protestant movements the Western Church has had to define and make Dogmatic many things that in the East with the lack of a Protestant movement did not have to do.

 

[dzheremi]

Council do have different functions. the largest is to combat a heresy. but also such as with the VII was to refine liturgical norms that have nothing to do with Doctrine or Dogma. A council and this is my opinion only is a last resort. and are not just because we are on a journey of understanding. That is why some of these small (for lack of a better word) difference between Catholic and Orthodox have come into being is in a effect to combat the heresies of the many Protestant movements the Western Church has had to define and make Dogmatic many things that in the East with the lack of a Protestant movement did not have to do.

Thanks for this, oneGODoneCHURCH. Just so we’re clear, I am aware that councils have different functions. I meant to address the promulgation of new doctrine only, as that is what Ahollars’ post was about.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Re submission to Peter and his successors, I have no problem with that since I understand that Jesus Christ appointed him as shepherd of his entire flock, just as God in the Old Testament appointed Moses as leader of the house of Israel. To me, Jesus Christ’s will as expressed in John chapter 15 is crystal clear. By telling him to shepherd his flock, Jesus appointed Peter as the supreme shepherd of his entire flock. I personally have a problem with the Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Patriarchs who try to remove part of the flock from Peter’s (from the Pope’s) authority. I will much rather submit to Peter and the Bishops faithful to him, than to those other Bishops and EO Patriarchs who deny his authority. In fact, I submit to Peter’s (the Pope’s) authority joyfully, because by obeying him I obey Jesus Christ who appointed Peter as my shepherd.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Sorry, I meant John21,15-17 (not chapter 15):

15
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

 

[trophybearer]

Sorry, I meant John21,15-17 (not chapter 15):

I wonder if Christ’s asking three times “do you love me” had anything to do with Simon’s having denied Him three times…? I guess Christ’s direction to “Feed My lambs…tend My sheep… feed My sheep” could mean that Simon would be the head of the entire Church, exercising universal jurisdiction and speaking infallibly in and of himself on matters of faith and morals and that it was necessary for salvation for all things to be subject to the Roman pontiff. Yeah, how could anyone not get all that from that passage…?

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Joseph,

Sorry, I meant John21,15-17 (not chapter 15):

                          15

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

This is essentially Peter’s confession and reconciliation.

It is a parallelism with Peter’s denial of Christ three times. Jesus Christ was holding Peter’s feet to the fire, so to say, that is the reason for Peter’s anguish.

Jesus told him to get back to the business of being a good shepherd! That is the business of all bishops.

It is not a mandate to control and supervise the work of all the other Apostles, nor to approve their appointments of bishops, nor to reassign those bishops to new territories or cities, nor to dictate a code of canons to the church on his own authority, nor to proclaim new dogmas on his own authority.

Peter did none of these things, nor did any of his successors anywhere in the church… not even his successors at Rome… until many centuries later when the bishops at the city of Rome began to claim powers outside of the Metropolitan See none had exercised before.

Your interpretation of the meaning of this passage is a later interpretation which, along with the pseudo-Isidorean decretals, was part of a campaign to agrandize the emerging Papacy.