Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches?

[trophybearer]

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.

I think you’re right on the money. Sorry if I’m supposed to pretend I think there’s any real hope. Maybe there is hope, but it will definitely take God’s doing… we certainly aren’t gonna hash this out ourselves with our own arguments. With God all things are possible, but looking at the situation all I can think is “Not going to happen in my lifetime.”

 

[eOxy]

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’?

Hi Peter J.

I understand your fellow Catholics.

Your inclination is correct; just add “from cyber-space”.

The authority of my posts isn’t based on who I am, than on what I say. Take it or leave it, it’s up to you.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi NoWings,

Very astute observations here…

I don’t see either church ever reuniting. Period.

One of two things could happen, I suppose:

1. One church must subsume the other.

Which is essentially what has happened in the past as soon as the Papacy would get the upper hand in some part of the world.

1. 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).

That has already been tried! It is why no Eastern Catholic is allowed to declare that they disbelieve Roman Catholic doctrine. This even though these are not normally taught in their churches and they cannot be presumed to understand them.

I once suggested (more or less facetiously) that something like an RCIA program be introduced for Eastern Catholics so that they can at least be sure to understand these doctrines which they are bound by canon law to affirm. However this resulted in howls of protest from the EC on the thread. It appears at least some EC do not want to understand them.

It might also be noted that there is no reciprocal demand upon Roman Catholics that they affirm Eastern Catholic doctrine, and many will attack those ideas with impunity thinking they are attacking “Orthodox” beliefs.

So it is a one-way street… back to your item #1.

 

[dzheremi]

It might also be noted that there is no reciprocal demand upon Roman Catholics that they affirm Eastern Catholic doctrine, and many will attack those ideas with impunity thinking they are attacking “Orthodox” beliefs.

Do you have any ready examples of this? This is very distressing to me.

I realize I am more than likely totally alone in this, and may even be risking my membership here, but I would go further and say that it would be a good idea for Roman Catholics to be made aware not just of Eastern Catholic doctrine, but also Eastern Orthodox doctrine. As I stated in last post in this thread, I think that RC’s (or at least converts like me) are at a disadvantage in discussion with the Orthodox as what is emphasized in Catholic education is our supposed similarities with the Orthodox, and very little is said of the actual differences…you know, the sorts of things we need to deal with if we’re going to talk about any kind of union! As an individual, I try to do as much research as I can on my own, but it is very difficult to sift through so much polemical and frankly often very disturbing material. When I’ve asked priests I know about the filioque, for instance, the conversation has generally gone like this:

Me: “The Orthodox I know say that the filioque is heresy. They say it insists on a ‘double procession’ of the Holy Spirit.”

Them: “It doesn’t, though. They’re wrong.”

Me: “Well…why? What am I supposed to believe about it? Why do they say that it is double procession if it is not?”

Them: “Because they want it to be, but they’re wrong.”

Me: “Okay…thanks.”

So it is as well with the Orthodox I have asked (albeit in the opposite direction, of course). I sometimes wonder if I’m wasting my time even trying to understand any of this stuff.

 

[Louie1983]

Actually none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were headed by bishops of Rome.

None of them were called by bishops of Rome, none of them were chaired by bishops of Rome.

Hi Hesychios,

It doesn’t matter if the pope was present or not or the bishops of rome, There is no valid
ecumenical council until the pope approves the final documents. I don’t know
which ones the popes attended and which ones he didn’t attend, but it is
irrelevant because the pope approved the conciliar documents.

 

[Louie1983]

I hate to break it to you like this, but there is very little or next to nothing you can teach Peter, so you can drop the pretense of explaining anything to him.

Yes, he is a Catholic in good standing. On CAF (and other websites) he very publicly and often reaffirms that he accepts all Catholic dogmas. He is also bluntly honest, he calls a cat a cat.

Most refreshing…

Fair enough, like i’ve explained twice now i did jump the gun on him because i was mixed up with someone else i was blogging with.

I apologised for it and hopefully he accepted.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Hi NoWings,

Very astute observations here… Which is essentially what has happened in the past as soon as the Papacy would get the upper hand in some part of the world.
That has already been tried! It is why no Eastern Catholic is allowed to declare that they disbelieve Roman Catholic doctrine. This even though these are not normally taught in their churches and they cannot be presumed to understand them.

I once suggested (more or less facetiously) that something like an RCIA program be introduced for Eastern Catholics so that they can at least be sure to understand these doctrines which they are bound by canon law to affirm. However this resulted in howls of protest from the EC on the thread. It appears at least some EC do not want to understand them.

It might also be noted that there is no reciprocal demand upon Roman Catholics that they affirm Eastern Catholic doctrine, and many will attack those ideas with impunity thinking they are attacking “Orthodox” beliefs.

So it is a one-way street… back to your item #1.

This is not True, Latins are just as Strongly taught to respect the Traditions of the Eastern Rites of the Church. That there is not constriction, but differences in expression. That a Catholic is a Catholic regardless of what Rite they belong to. I personally wish that there was a Eastern Rite Church closer to me, but the closest is 100 miles away. I would love to learn more of about how those of the Eastern traditions express the Catholic Faith. Now I do realize that in years past and we are talking 40 years ago and back there was a feeling that the Eastern Rites need to be Latinized to various degrees, but as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both said that is not to be and have encouraged the Eastern Catholics that did to rediscover themselves just as They have promoted us Latins to rediscover a lot of what we lost after VII.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

:hypno:

Mickey, that’s just about the reaction I expected from you! I hope your cardiovascular health is fine, 'coz I don’t want to cause dangerous swings in your blood pressure, brother!

You should watch the Russians’ reactions when I tell them that God wanted the P O P E to consecrate Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart! The P O P E and Russia!

 

[dzheremi]

Joseph, please, can you be more civil towards our Orthodox friends in this thread? You are not conversing with Muslims, LDS, JW or some other group that our Church considers outside the Christian fold. Russia and its Orthodox Church is devoted to the Theotokos already!

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Louie,

Hi Hesychios,

It doesn’t matter if the pope was present or not or the bishops of rome, There is no valid ecumenical council until the pope approves the final documents. I don’t know
which ones the popes attended and which ones he didn’t attend, but it is
irrelevant because the pope approved the conciliar documents.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this claim.

This is where the confusion for Catholics sets in…

The bishops of Roma never attended the original councils, but they were Metropolitans of high regard. The Councils wanted their findings to be adopted by other Christian communities that were not well represented, so all synods were asked to ratify and adopt the conciliar decrees. Thus Roma as well as other cities were sent copies.

There were other synods which were outside the empire at points in history, these were not usually well represented. Any prelate who could attend would vote, each legate from Metropolitanates further afield would get a vote (yes, other bishops sent legates to Councils too), but this could hardly bind the synods back home. Recall that by the time of the first Council there were already Christians in India, Armenia, Persia and Abyssinia, yet these places were independent of the empire. Some were very poorly represented at the Councils. Western Europe was very rustic in places, and far enough away that it was not well represented either.

Rome was asked, like every other synod was asked, to subscribe to Councils that all may be of one mind. Rome usually followed along.

Even in those rare occasions when the bishop of Rome did not agree they had full force and effect in the east, one example being the famous Canon III of Constantinople 381AD (the bishop of Roma disagreed but the east ignored him, the order of primacy changed anyway). Roma finally reversed itself and agreed with the rest of the church in 1215AD.

The Quinisext Council was never approved by Roma, yet it has had full force and effect in all the rest of the church. The East did not need the approval of the Pope then and does not need it now.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council actually condemned a Pope.

Not one of these Councils was called by a Pope, not one was controlled by a Pope and not one was chaired by a Pope. In each case the church of the west was asked to reaffirm the findings in the same manner that the church of India and other outlying synods were asked, and for the same reason.

What you are asserting here is a myth. It is commonly recited by cyber-Catholics like an urban legend, but it is not true.

 

[Hesychios]

Fair enough, like i’ve explained twice now …

I must also apologize to you, because you most certainly did explain yourself adequately, but I missed that

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Louie,

Hi Hesychios,

It doesn’t matter if the pope was present or not or the bishops of rome, There is no valid ecumenical council until the pope approves the final documents. I don’t know
which ones the popes attended and which ones he didn’t attend, but it is
irrelevant because the pope approved the conciliar documents.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this claim.

This is where the confusion for Catholics sets in…

The bishops of Roma never attended the original councils, but they were Metropolitans of high regard. The Councils wanted their findings to be adopted by other Christian communities that were not well represented, so all synods were asked to ratify and adopt the conciliar decrees. Thus Roma as well as other cities were sent copies.

There were other synods which were outside the empire at points in history, these were not usually well represented. Any prelate who could attend would vote, each legate from Metropolitanates further afield would get a vote (yes, other bishops sent legates to Councils too), but this could hardly bind the synods back home. Recall that by the time of the first Council there were already Christians in India, Armenia, Persia and Abyssinia, yet these places were independent of the empire. Some were very poorly represented at the Councils. Western Europe was very rustic in places, and far enough away that it was not well represented either.

Rome was asked, like every other synod was asked, to subscribe to Councils that all may be of one mind. Rome usually followed along.

Even in those rare occasions when the bishop of Rome did not agree they had full force and effect in the east, one example being the famous Canon III of Constantinople 381AD (the bishop of Roma disagreed but the east ignored him, the order of primacy changed anyway). Roma finally reversed itself and agreed with the rest of the church in 1215AD.

The Quinisext Council was never approved by Roma, yet it has had full force and effect in all the rest of the church. The East did not need the approval of the Pope then and does not need it now.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council actually condemned a Pope.

Not one of these Councils was called by a Pope, not one was controlled by a Pope and not one was chaired by a Pope. In each case the church of the west was asked to reaffirm the findings in the same manner that the church of India and other outlying synods were asked, and for the same reason.

What you are asserting here is a myth. It is commonly recited by cyber-Catholics like an urban legend, but it is not true.

 

[Louie1983]

I must also apologize to you, because you most certainly did explain yourself adequately, but I missed that

Michael

No worries at all! all good…

 

[Louie1983]

Hi Louie, I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this claim.

This is where the confusion for Catholics sets in…

The bishops of Roma never attended the original councils, but they were Metropolitans of high regard. The Councils wanted their findings to be adopted by other Christian communities that were not well represented, so all synods were asked to ratify and adopt the conciliar decrees. Thus Roma as well as other cities were sent copies.

There were other synods which were outside the empire at points in history, these were not usually well represented. Any prelate who could attend would vote, each legate from Metropolitanates further afield would get a vote (yes, other bishops sent legates to Councils too), but this could hardly bind the synods back home. Recall that by the time of the first Council there were already Christians in India, Armenia, Persia and Abyssinia, yet these places were independent of the empire. Some were very poorly represented at the Councils. Western Europe was very rustic in places, and far enough away that it was not well represented either.

Rome was asked, like every other synod was asked, to subscribe to Councils that all may be of one mind. Rome usually followed along.

Even in those rare occasions when the bishop of Rome did not agree they had full force and effect in the east, one example being the famous Canon III of Constantinople 381AD (the bishop of Roma disagreed but the east ignored him, the order of primacy changed anyway). Roma finally reversed itself and agreed with the rest of the church in 1215AD.

The Quinisext Council was never approved by Roma, yet it has had full force and effect in all the rest of the church. The East did not need the approval of the Pope then and does not need it now.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council actually condemned a Pope.

Not one of these Councils was called by a Pope, not one was controlled by a Pope and not one was chaired by a Pope. In each case the church of the west was asked to reaffirm the findings in the same manner that the church of India and other outlying synods were asked, and for the same reason.

What you are asserting here is a myth. It is commonly recited by cyber-Catholics like an urban legend, but it is not true.

I respectfully disagree Michael.

All you have done here is explain how councils worked. You say rome usually followed along, could it be possible that maybe because rome had nothing much to disagree with? perhaps that the pope felt the faith was being kept and no heresy or error was being considered.

Can you provide a evidence or a resource which shows the sixth ecumenical council condeming the pope? I find this interesting.

What does the fact that the pope did not call the council have to do with his authority? i;m sure he could have called one for himself if he felt the need. Regardless the pope always had to approve the concilliar documents. You said copies were sent to rome? i wonder why?

The east did require the approval of the pope back then unfortunately not today for obvious reasons.Orthodoxy accepts the first seven Ecumenical Councils (up to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787), .Why have an agreed-upon system in which Councils are central to the governance of the Church universal, and then all of a sudden they cease?

As an honest question (it may be a stupid one) has the orthodox church had any councils since?

 

[Peter_J]

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?

Louie1983,

I wasn’t going to respond to the post quoted above, but now I think it’s best that I do, given the way it continues to come up, e.g. the recent discussion between yourself and Hesychios.

The reason that I haven’t said “Alright, I’ll forgive your ignorance” is quite simple: I never felt that said ignorance was anything that needed to be forgiven (or needed to be apologized for).

Indeed, I think if you look back at my posts, you won’t see any where I criticized you for ignorance …

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.

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.

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

 

[Louie1983]

Louie1983,

I wasn’t going to respond to the post quoted above, but now I think it’s best that I do, given the way it continues to come up, e.g. the recent discussion between yourself and Hesychios.

The reason that I haven’t said “Alright, I’ll forgive your ignorance” is quite simple: I never felt that said ignorance was anything that needed to be forgiven (or needed to be apologized for).

Indeed, I think if you look back at my posts, you won’t see any where I criticized you for ignorance …

OK peterj, I’m over it now. All is good my friend.

 

[Peter_J]

OK peterj, I’m over it now. All is good my friend.

Once again you have just shown your own arrogance and presumptuousness.

 

[Louie1983]

Once again you have just shown your own arrogance and presumptuousness.

are you serious???

I acknowledged that i was wrong TWICE! apologised for it TWICE!

I’m seriously past it peterj and i think you should forget it to! , Let’s get back to the topic.I honestly want to hear your opinion on the re-unification of the 2 churches as i asked you twice before.

 

[Peter_J]

are you serious?

Yes.

 

[Louie1983]

Yes.