Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches?

[bpbasilphx]

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?

---

Isn’t this one of the plot element in the novel and movie SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN?

 

[dzheremi]

But I have gathered in the Middle East, the different Christian communities, while faithful to their own traditions, pretty much float back and forth from Church to Church. For example, the line between Melkite and Antiochian Orthodox, or Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholic just isn’t as precise as we find in the USA.

Yea, there is frequent concelebration among these different groups.

Which makes me wonder: could the Schism of 1054 (and earlier ones) continue if the faithful simply refused to recognize and support them?

This is an excellent point. None of my Middle Eastern Christian friends of different Churches (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, etc) seem to have the preoccupation with the unresolved status of the Schism that Christians elsewhere seem to have. Perhaps that is a sign of the relative decline of the Christian communities in those countries (you know, it is easier to stop seeing yourself as “Catholic” as opposed to “Orthodox” or vice-versa when you are persecuted for just being “Christian”), or perhaps it is a reason for hope and joy. Perhaps it is both at the same time. I don’t know.

For all this talk (not in your post, just in general in this thread) about submission to Papal authority, what is and what is not an infallible statement, Rome’s heresy, etc., I personally would be willing to stop recognizing the Schism, even if it meant a serious education on my part in the Orthodox faith and its differences with Catholicism (and it most certainly would). For what it is worth, my Catholic education via RCIA was extremely helpful in teaching about the faith of the RCC, but was not geared towards any kind of ecumenical talk. I think Catholic people are at something of a disadvantage in talks with Orthodox friends because our Church tends to give us the message that there are not so many insurmountable differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy; instead, the real difference is between Catholicism, Orthodoxy (the Apostolic Churches) and Protestantism. Coming from a Protestant background, I suppose I was more willing to believe this sort of binary view of “Apostolic Christianity vs. everything else”, so long as I could be assured that I would no longer be in the “everything else” camp. The trouble is that Orthodoxy don’t see it that way. At least from what discussions with my Orthodox friends and reading Timothy Ware’s “The Orthodox Church” have shown me, the division in the mind of the Orthodox is “Orthodoxy vs. everything else”, with Catholicism (Western AND Eastern, as the Eastern Catholic Churches, to be fair, are mostly poached from the congregations of various Orthodox Churches) being little better than Protestantism.

So…that’s tough to deal with, honestly. Or maybe just especially tough to deal with for me because I don’t like the idea of being a Protestant, and yet I do not come from areas of the world known for any significant form of Christianity other than Catholicism. I mean, I can read Greek more or less (and Russian and Arabic), but culturally…I don’t want to be a Byzantine! And there really is no “Latin Orthodoxy”…though I know of some Spanish people who talk about the Mozarabic Rite as though it is…

 

[Louie1983]

Wow, that’s an eye-opener. It hadn’t occurred to me that they would even read this thread. I wonder how much time they’ll spend discussing whether or not Pope Clement I issued an infallible teaching?

Oh dear.

I’ll make myself clearer PeterJ, Maybe you might understand this time.

What i meant was if the orthodox and catholic churches were to meet to discuss reuniting, don’t you think the topics brought up here would be the core to that discussion?

things like:

• The leadership of the pope
• Our lady
• Sexual morality - i believe the orthodox church has changed it’s stand on certain areas i.e contraception (please correct me if i’m wrong)

These have been the divisive factor between the 2 churches. Surely if they were to discuss a reunification they would discuss the things that separate us!

Clear enough?

 

[JohnVIII]

From the Orthodox perspective there can be no “reconciliation” of “re-unification” as long as RC continue to profess the anathemized heresy filioque (under the anathema of 4 councils - 3 ecumenical ones plus one local).

Reduction of this stumbling block to “rites” is insulting.

On top of that, IMHO, there can be not even a thought about “primacy” (not to mention supemacy and infaillability) of Rome. Rome needs to humble herself for, say, approximately the same period that she had herself in heresy - exactly 996 years at the moment - and she would need to be demoted to the last in ranks.

I don’t think RC can accept that.

But there is always the hope in Holy Spirit (that proceeds from Father alone).

Talk about things that will never happen! I agree that the filioque is wrong, but Rome believed in it as early as about 500 AD. It has alwas been tolerated because in the West it help to fight much greater errors, such as Arianism. The point at which it could no longer be tolerated was when it started to be included in the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church will never accept these things.

Would you favor union with Rome without Rome changing at all, and the Eastern Churches confessing the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Louie1983]

What you are promoting is a fiction. In the first place a teaching role is much beyond defining dogma. In fact, defining new dogma is not a proper part of teaching the Faith, it is the conserving and transmission of the Faith once handed from Christ to the Apostles that is the teaching office of the church.

Your making a big deal out of the fact of defining dogma! all this is confirming what the church has been teaching all along! there has been no changes made to any teaching. Dogma IS a way of transmitting the faith, the reason the church does this is to avoid confusion as to what the church teaches, so you won’t 30 different answers as you might with different protestant groups.

There is no place for the defining new dogmas. The church always addressed threats of heresy by Council, and in those cases when a more positive definition (the setting of limits to an understanding, an apophatic approach) was called for, it was always as a Council of the Fathers that such decisions were made.

A council that was headed by the pope! I think you might forget what a council is and was back then, It was the gathering of bishops who were in union with the pope! These councils by the way provided you the teachings of Christ’s divinity, the trinity, the natures of Christ, the hypostatic union, the Bible canon, etc. Second, Scripture and Tradition both show that Peter and his successors always had the last word. We see this in Acts 15. We see this with Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. And the Orthodox obeyed the councils that were headed and approved by the pope until they broke away from Rome.

You attack the Orthodox Faith over the issue of artificial birth control, yet the Orthodox faith does not promote, and certainly does not “bless” the use of artificial birth control (people who think that have confused the terminology). In fact the church condemns all forms of abortifactants and directly opposes abortion. Techniques individuals might employ outside of this within their marriage are as benign as the rhythm method.

**No-one is attacking the orthodox, this is just a discussion discussing the obstacles that are placed in between a re-unification between the two churches. Enivitably the difference between the two churches will come up and be discussed! If you can’t handle the fact that catholics will point out the differences between the churches then maybe you shouldn’t be involved in this discussion. I’m certainly prepared (and any catholic for that matter) for any
discussion/argument/difference of opinion that would come up. Yet i won’t go accuse them of attacking the faith, that’s a sign of weakness if you ask me. Your confusing honest and frank dialogue with being attacked! How can you ever have a proper conversation with that attitude? **

When the couple have only an MD to turn to for advice, they will only get an MD’s perspective. Orthodox families are plugged in to the church and encouraged to consult with their own spiritual directors (usually the pastor). The church always encourages life and engages the needs of families with pastoral concern. This is something many Roman Catholic priests sometimes attempt to do as well, even though they are not really permitted to.

Hang on a sec, you say "engages the needs of families with pastoral concern" does that mean if the needs of families means to use contraception that the priest will OK it? This is an honest question i’m not trying to be sneaky or antyhing. What is the official orthodox teaching on contraception? are all preists required to teach the faith “in season and out” or use their assessment of the situation at the time to make a decision?

Now from the perspective of Holy Orthodoxy, your claim that “Popes have never taught error” is unconvincing, because:

Every priest and bishop, including later bishops of Rome, who have endorsed the filioque have taught error. That is about 1,000 years worth of mistakes.

**Can you give me an example of these erros please? The church defined Christ’s divinity, the trinity, the natures of Christ, the hypostatic union, the Bible canon, etc. were these rrors? **

Continued on post 86…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

From the Orthodox perspective there can be no “reconciliation” of “re-unification” as long as RC continue to profess the anathemized heresy filioque (under the anathema of 4 councils - 3 ecumenical ones plus one local).

Reduction of this stumbling block to “rites” is insulting.

On top of that, IMHO, there can be not even a thought about “primacy” (not to mention supemacy and infaillability) of Rome. Rome needs to humble herself for, say, approximately the same period that she had herself in heresy - exactly 996 years at the moment - and she would need to be demoted to the last in ranks.

I don’t think RC can accept that.

But there is always the hope in Holy Spirit (that proceeds from Father alone).

I do not believe it was meant to be insults nor is it insulting. what is insulting is your stance that any one would be demoted and subjugated to any one else. As for your statement of being last remember it is the words of Christ that said he that is last shall be first. So I would not have a Problem with the Holy Father takeing that Roll other than it is not the role he was given as Chief shepherd. I was also wondering on what authority you find yourself capable of make statements as to what the Rome must do? Pleas share with us are you a Bishop of the Orthodox faith?

I will agree that there is hope always and that the Holy Spirit that proceeds for the Father ( and the Son if your tradition includes this line) we all may come to find that God is Quite saddened be this nearly 1000 years of schism, put aside our all to human and sinful egos and unite to be in obedience To Christ to be one as he and the Father are one.

 

[Louie1983]

continued…

Every priest and bishop, including bishops of Rome, who have promoted the notion that one man on his own authority could proclaim dogma for the entire church have taught error. Only heretics have ever introduced dogma upon their own authority, men like Marcion, Valentinus, Arius, Calvin etc. The Orthodox Catholic Faith never has accepted the authority of one individual to define dogma for the church…

**Wrong again. The orthodox church has acceppted the teaching of the trinity, hyperstatic union, bible canon etc. How come you accept these teachings that were defined by councils headed by the pope? **
Every priest and bishop, including bishops of Rome, who have promoted the concept that any one bishop controls the entire church have taught error. It was never that way from even the very first day.

**Really? are you sure about that? Peter closing the council in regards to circumcision? Pope clement I letter to the corinthians? here are some early church father quotes that put your argument to sleep:

• “Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).
• “And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232). **

Then of course there are those who have taught error by their own personal life examples, and there are so many it does not bear recounting here. How many they have led astray is anyone’s guess.

**So i guess no orthodox person has led anyone astray? i fail to believe that. **

The entire concept of transactional salvation and the sale of indulgences was an error so great in magnitude that it lead to schism and wars. Millions ultimately died to war while countless more fell to destitution and abuse. How many souls were lost through that gamesmanship no one can tell, yet apologists will claim the Pope was not “teaching” anything while he was promoting this serious theological mistake.

Yes the church has made erros in acts but not in it’s teaching on the faith. are you telling me the orthodox church has never been involved in scandals?

These are some of the reasons why we must wait for reconciliation. Holy Orthodoxy must wait for the Holy Spirit to soften your bishop’s hearts, and lead your church back to the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Faith of your ancestors and predecessors.

Incorrect, it is the orthodox who must open their eyes and see past their pride and come back to the holy catholic and apostolic church that was founded by Jesus Christ and built on the rock that is peter. Gos wants untiy but only under his true church that teaches no error and is guiding light in this sark world!

 

[Peter_J]

Oh dear.

I’ll make myself clearer PeterJ, Maybe you might understand this time.

What i meant was if the orthodox and catholic churches were to meet to discuss reuniting, don’t you think the topics brought up here would be the core to that discussion?

things like:

• The leadership of the pope
• Our lady
• Sexual morality - i believe the orthodox church has changed it’s stand on certain areas i.e contraception (please correct me if i’m wrong)

These have been the divisive factor between the 2 churches. Surely if they were to discuss a reunification they would discuss the things that separate us!

Clear enough?

Oh thank you teacher! :bowdown2:

FYI, I was making a joke. The amount of conceit on CAF is so bad it’s funny. By the way, I love your statement about "if the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were to meet to discuss reuniting … " (emphasis added).

 

[Peter_J]

Hi JohnVIII,

I’m a person who likes short and simple questions and answers. Unfortunately, to fully explain my conviction that the Russian Church will unite with Rome will require writing a thesis paper several pages long. Some day I suppose I’m going to have to do this and then provide a link to it in this forum. The only simple answer I can give about it now is to say that if the Patriarch of Russia issued a ukaz for all the Russian clergy to obey a rule of unity with Bishop of Rome than 99.9% of the Russian clergy would obey and be under the jurisdiction of Rome. Do you suppose that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church would concider such a patriarchal ukaz “fruitless” as well?

It’s interesting how the majority of “too ecumenical” criticisms and the majority of the “not ecumenical enough” criticisms always seem to focus on the Russian Orthodox Church. Just a side comment.

Talk about things that will never happen! I agree that the filioque is wrong, but Rome believed in it as early as about 500 AD. It has alwas been tolerated because in the West it help to fight much greater errors, such as Arianism. The point at which it could no longer be tolerated was when it started to be included in the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church will never accept these things.

If you mean that the RCC will never accept that the filioque is wrong, then I quite agree with you.

 

[Peter_J]

I guess my question for Roman Catholics would be, would they accept a reunion if Rome were to admit that some or all of its post-schism dogmas were wrong?

Since I believe that those dogmas are in fact real dogmas, I don’t think there’s any way for me to answer your hypothetical question.

 

[Louie1983]

Oh thank you teacher! :bowdown2:

FYI, I was making a joke. The amount of conceit on CAF is so bad it’s funny. By the way, I love your statement about "if the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were to meet to discuss reuniting … " (emphasis added).

Joking or being sarcastic? I decided to answer it anyway as i thought we were having a serious and honest discussion.

Theres no conceit here, you just can’t handle the heat of a discussion. No-one here is attacking you.

Let me be perfectly honest with you in regards to what i think about the orthodox church. I think of all christian denominations - protestant, lutheran, anglican etc as brothers and sisters whom i sincerely love and pray for.

But have you ever had a brother or sister whom you seem to be closer to than the rest? even though you are very cose to everyone there’s that one sibling who you are closer to? that’s what i think of the othodox church. I believe we have many similarities and many things that we can agree on. I believe the catholic and orthodox church share a special relationship together then with any other denomination. I sincerely love and respect my orthodox brothers and sisters and i’m always praying for them. The reason why i defend the church is because if i love you i want what’s best for you - Catholic church and it’s truths!

God bless!

 

[Harpazo]

Oh dear.

I’ll make myself clearer PeterJ, Maybe you might understand this time.

What i meant was if the orthodox and catholic churches were to meet to discuss reuniting, don’t you think the topics brought up here would be the core to that discussion?

things like:

• The leadership of the pope
• Our lady
• Sexual morality - i believe the orthodox church has changed it’s stand on certain areas i.e contraception (please correct me if i’m wrong)

I will correct you. You are mistaken about the last part. The Orthodox position on contraception and abortion is the same as it has been for 2,000 years. In fact, if you look closer, you’ll see that the Orthodox are a little stricter. During certain fasting periods, married couples are to abstain from sexual relations as well as certain foods.

These have been the divisive factor between the 2 churches. Surely if they were to discuss a reunification they would discuss the things that separate us!

Clear enough?

At Ravenna, they focused much of it on Roman primacy.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Louie1983]

I will correct you. You are mistaken about the last part. The Orthodox position on contraception and abortion is the same as it has been for 2,000 years. In fact, if you look closer, you’ll see that the Orthodox are a little stricter. During certain fasting periods, married couples are to abstain from sexual relations as well as certain foods.

At Ravenna, they focused much of it on Roman primacy.

In Christ,
Andrew

Thankyou for correcting me! i’m glad that nothing has changed in this regard. I’ll make sure i correct my friends whenever they bring this up.

Is there any where you can actually refer me to that confirms this? some sort of official teaching from the orthodox?

 

[Peter_J]

The reason why i defend the church is because if i love you i want what’s best for you - Catholic church and it’s truths!

Thank you, Louie1983, for illustrating my point by assuming that I’m not a real Catholic (based on no evidence that I can see). I would definitely call that conceit.

 

[Louie1983]

Thank you, Louie1983, for illustrating my point by assuming that I’m not a real Catholic (based on no evidence that I can see). I would definitely call that conceit.

You know what out of that whole paragraph you chose that line to respond to? what does that say about you? you looked for something in there t twist and turn into a negative after i tried to make honest attempt to be charitable. You didnt even bother to acknowledge the rest of the post. I’ll just keep praying for you.

Let me tell you something, just because i tell you somrthing you don’t you want to hear that doesn’t mean that i’m conceited. I’m explaining the teachings of the catholic church. And to be frank you are orthodox and not a real catholic! To be catholic means to accept and acknowledge the authority of the pope and the hurch and it’s teachings. I’ll give you plenty of evidence of this if you are willing to listen? somehow i don’t think your game…

 

[Peter_J]

And to be frank you are orthodox and not a real catholic!

And (out of curiosity) you decided this based on what evidence? Let me guess: you assumed that I’m not Catholic because I haven’t proven that I am?

Also (again, purely out of curiosity) out of the many non-Catholic groups why did you decide that I’m Orthodox specifically?

I hope you won’t take this personally, but I have a limited amount of time available in my schedule and a lot of people that I try to converse with on this forum, so I don’t expect that I’ll continue to respond to your rather absurd posts.

 

[dvdjs]

I will correct you. You are mistaken about the last part. The Orthodox position on contraception and abortion is the same as it has been for 2,000 years.

Louie 1983 responded:

Is there any where you can actually refer me to that confirms this? some sort of official teaching from the orthodox?

You will not get confirmation. Harpazo is just wrong. Maybe after some years practicing Orthodoxy he will know better.

 

[Louie1983]

And (out of curiosity) you decided this based on what evidence? Let me guess: you assumed that I’m not Catholic because I haven’t proven that I am?

**You know what, after reading through the last couple of posts i believe i have jumped the gun on you. I was responding to a couple of people at once and must have gotten mixed up. Please accept my humblest apologies. **

Also (again, purely out of curiosity) out of the many non-Catholic groups why did you decide that I’m Orthodox specifically?

Being a thread on on the 2 churches i assumed so. Again i apologise.
I hope you won’t take this personally, but I have a limited amount of time available in my schedule and a lot of people that I try to converse with on this forum, so I don’t expect that I’ll continue to respond to your rather absurd posts.

Out of my curiosity what are you? (faith-wise)

Defending the faith is absurd is it? or were you talking about the posts directed at you (in which case i agree).

 

[Peter_J]

Out of my curiosity what are you? (faith-wise)

Wow! You are still, even now, trying to make out that I’m not really a Catholic? I’m impressed.

 

[Louie1983]

Wow! You are still, even now, trying to make out that I’m not really a Catholic? I’m impressed.

No i was actually asking a question to which i didn’t know the answer. And you again twisting and turning my words. Let’s move on shall we?

Ok you’ve answered my question. Thankyou. Forgive my ignornace.

What’s your opinion on the re-unification of the orthodox and catholic church?