Reuniting all the Churches of Christ, East and West

[Lucky7]

Its posts like these…full of pontificating folks who know nothing about what they are talking about that make me question…why the hell do I stay in communion with the West?

Or perhaps we do. Of course, we are expressing our opinions here. NO ONE knows how this will happen. Perhaps God will intervene miraculously. My opinion is coming from a practical, common sense standpoint. It is based on what I know about Church doctrine…that it can not change.

You brought an example of how things would look. The person you quoted really didn’t answer the question. How do you think the two churches will reunite? Do you think the Catholic Church will change its teaching on papal infallibility, papal supremacy vs primacy, the filioque, to name a few?

 

[Lucky7]

Since both Rome and the Orthodox are discussing matters, I choose to let them discuss it rather than inject opinions for which I am not qualified.

If and how the issues which separate the two churches are resolved will be done by people far more capable than I; and spending time saying what one or the other has to do is pointless.

As to how it may be worked out, that is not my concern; The Orthodox have great Marian devotion. I say let the experts continue on their work; our job is to hold them up in prayer.

When folks post like this it always seems as if to say that all of us who are choosing to discuss this are wrong to do so. There is nothing wrong with discussing this or any other matter that affects our Church at large…whether we can do anything about it or not.

 

[UncleBill]

Or perhaps we do. Of course, we are expressing our opinions here. NO ONE knows how this will happen. Perhaps God will intervene miraculously. My opinion is coming from a practical, common sense standpoint. It is based on what I know about Church doctrine…that it can not change.

You brought an example of how things would look. The person you quoted really didn’t answer the question. How do you think the two churches will reunite? Do you think the Catholic Church will change its teaching on papal infallibility, papal supremacy vs primacy, the filioque, to name a few?

Yes I do believe Rome will change. Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter et unum sint asked for (name removed by moderator)ut from the other churches as to
how the papacy needs to change in a reunited church…Pope BENEDICT was also involved in this dialogue…I have no reason to believe Pope Francis will not continue this. The papacy has already changed over the last 100 years.

The filioque issues have already been worked out and the Catholic and Orthodox churches came to an agreement quite a few years ago. Rome stated that the filioque is a liturgical anomaly of the West…notice that the filioque is never used in a Catholic service served in Greek…and is not used in RC services in Greece or Russia. The filioque is basically a dead letter.

So yes the Church of Rome will modify her approach to the Papacy…Pope Francis seems to be on the right track already. Sit back and watch.

Now back to Great and Holy Friday! {can’t wait for PASCHA!}

 

[otjm]

That’s fine, but if I do it again and I may very well do it because it’s a habit, just give me a gentle reminder. I would argue that most folks who say RCC aren’t saying it to the exclusion of any church that is in communion (even if they do not know about the different rites within it). Clearly this thread is about the big Catholic Church vs all of the other denominations that are not in communion with the big Catholic Church (although we are talking mostly about the Orthodox Church).

I apologize for being blunt - bad habit of mine.

Part of my avoidance of using RCC is that I have taught RCIA for a long time, and when starting that I started asking Catholics questions (when they would use the term RCC) and found the vast majority were assuming that RCC = the Church; most were not aware of the fact that there were various Churches. Maybe it is a west coast thing, but it made me (hyper?) sensitive to the matter.

And yes, the thread is about the Church as opposed to the Church of Rome - Latin, Roman; but particularly when we are speaking of the Eastern Churches, whether the Orthodox or the Eastern Rites in unity with Rome, I think it is important that we be sensitive to the fact that we can come across as the “two hundred pound gorilla”. History shows enough problems in our relationship with the East; we are not “better” than they; we are all equal (and the Western/Latin/Roman rite has much it can learn fro the others).

So. Perhaps I did not express much humility when suggesting we all use some.

 

[otjm]

Or perhaps we do. Of course, we are expressing our opinions here. NO ONE knows how this will happen. Perhaps God will intervene miraculously. My opinion is coming from a practical, common sense standpoint. It is based on what I know about Church doctrine…that it can not change.

You brought an example of how things would look. The person you quoted really didn’t answer the question. How do you think the two churches will reunite? Do you think the Catholic Church will change its teaching on papal infallibility, papal supremacy vs primacy, the filioque, to name a few?

My guess is that the filioque would be removed; it is not required in the Eastern rites (and I admit it feels and sounds funny when reciting the Creed at our local Ruthinian parish).

When John Paul 2 started his weekly commentary which ended up under the heading of Theology of the Body, there were a number of neo scholastics who had a significantly difficult time with it. That was due to the fact that they thought of things theological in scholastic terms; when such was stated in other terms (e.g. humanism and phenomenology) they were not able to make the shift (or had great difficulty). I would not be surprised if we find that the matters are spoken of in a different way. Speaking of them in a different way is not a denial of them, nor is it any back-pedaling. The West speaks of Christ in scholastic terms; the
East in mystical terms and both speak of the same Christ and both speak the truth.

Prior to the split, the East acknowledged the See of Peter as being the final arbiter, so it is not as if this were something that suddenly popped up out of the blue (that is, infallibility, primacy/supremacy). So no, I don’t think that the Church will change its teaching, but it may change the way it teaches.

 

[otjm]

When folks post like this it always seems as if to say that all of us who are choosing to discuss this are wrong to do so. There is nothing wrong with discussing this or any other matter that affects our Church at large…whether we can do anything about it or not.

I would not use the word “wrong”. I have read enough theology to know that there is a whole lot I do not know. That does not mean that I give up trying to understand something; but it does mean that a) I trust the Magisterium of the Church (and elsewhere on other issues, this is a prominent matter), and b) the people who are working on this are those trusted at the highest levels.

It is somewhat along the lines of , the more I read and learn, the more I realize I don’t know a lot. I am not trying to suggest that learning is not appropriate; it is more that I start from the premise that Rome will not do wrong, so if they do something I do not understand, I look back to my premise.

Another way of saying it is, of course they are not going to deny any doctrine. Therefore, if the Orthodox have issues, they may be resolved by restating the matters; restatements do not equal denials, but the language will sound different.

Again, I think our experience with John Paul 2 is a strong clue; he spoke the same truths about, for example, sexual morality, but he spoke them in a language that made sense to a lot of people (and not much to others) because he spoke of them in a different way, a different language.

 

[PJM]

=Tomdstone;10698026]Is it only schism, or does it include heresy also on such issues as papal infallibility, divorce, and the Immaculate Conception.

Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary defines Schism and heresy in this manner:

SCHISM. A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. “Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ,” he asks, “and revolt against our own body, and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?” While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. “By false doctrines concerning God,” declared St. Augustine, “heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.” Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.)

HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)END QUOTE

 

[Lucky7]

Yes I do believe Rome will change. Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter et unum sint asked for (name removed by moderator)ut from the other churches as to
how the papacy needs to change in a reunited church…Pope BENEDICT was also involved in this dialogue…I have no reason to believe Pope Francis will not continue this. The papacy has already changed over the last 100 years.

So yes the Church of Rome will modify her approach to the Papacy…Pope Francis seems to be on the right track already. Sit back and watch.

That’s a long apostolic letter. Could you show me where the Pope is asking for such (name removed by moderator)ut on the papacy? Also, I think there is a big difference in saying there will be changes to the papacy and changing the Church’s doctrine on papal infallibility and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Assuming the type of changes the letter refers to is the former (which is what I would bet money on), then I still believe that these are not major doctrinal changes and, in the end, will still require the other churches to agree with the CC, not the other way around.

 

[Lucky7]

I apologize for being blunt - bad habit of mine.

History shows enough problems in our relationship with the East; we are not “better” than they; we are all equal (and the Western/Latin/Roman rite has much it can learn fro the others).

So. Perhaps I did not express much humility when suggesting we all use some.

Not a problem otjm…I am guilty of the same at times.

Wrt not being “better”, I guess it would depend on what we are referring to when we say that. I believe that the CC has the fullness of the Truth, so, yes, in that sense we are “better” than the other churches who do not have the fullness. OTOH, if you are referring to the Latin Rite/West saying it is “better” than the Eastern Rite of the CC, then I agree with you. Neither rite is “better”. We are just different. Both are still part of the one True Church.

 

[Lucky7]

My guess is that the filioque would be removed; it is not required in the Eastern rites (and I admit it feels and sounds funny when reciting the Creed at our local Ruthinian parish).

I would not be surprised if we find that the matters are spoken of in a different way. Speaking of them in a different way is not a denial of them, nor is it any back-pedaling. The West speaks of Christ in scholastic terms; the East in mystical terms and both speak of the same Christ and both speak the truth.

Prior to the split, the East acknowledged the See of Peter as being the final arbiter, so it is not as if this were something that suddenly popped up out of the blue (that is, infallibility, primacy/supremacy). So no, I don’t think that the Church will change its teaching, but it may change the way it teaches.

(1) I did not realize that the Eastern rites do not profess this…interesting. They do believe it though, right?

(2) Having said that, I do not think the main issue is whether we profess it during the liturgy as part of our profession of faith. I think the main issue is that the Orthodox Church does not BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, only the Son. That is a doctrinal difference, no? I don’t see an issue with them not professing it (as do our eastern brothers and sisters), but if they don’t believe the same way as we do, then, again, how would that = full communion?

(3) Their understanding and belief of Peter being the final arbiter is still very different than Catholic teaching.

 

[Lucky7]

I would not use the word “wrong”. I have read enough theology to know that there is a whole lot I do not know. That does not mean that I give up trying to understand something; but it does mean that a) I trust the Magisterium of the Church (and elsewhere on other issues, this is a prominent matter), and b) the people who are working on this are those trusted at the highest levels.

It is somewhat along the lines of , the more I read and learn, the more I realize I don’t know a lot. I am not trying to suggest that learning is not appropriate; it is more that I start from the premise that Rome will not do wrong, so if they do something I do not understand, I look back to my premise.

Another way of saying it is, of course they are not going to deny any doctrine. Therefore, if the Orthodox have issues, they may be resolved by restating the matters; restatements do not equal denials, but the language will sound different.

Again, I think our experience with John Paul 2 is a strong clue; he spoke the same truths about, for example, sexual morality, but he spoke them in a language that made sense to a lot of people (and not much to others) because he spoke of them in a different way, a different language.

Fair enough otjm. Maybe I was being hard on you. I do think, however, that there are posters who say something similar and it’s a veiled way of coming into a thread and telling everyone how wrong they are for even talking about whatever the topic happens to be.

 

[Lucky7]

Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary defines Schism and heresy in this manner:

SCHISM. A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. “Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ,” he asks, “and revolt against our own body, and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?” While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. “By false doctrines concerning God,” declared St. Augustine, “heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.” Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.)

HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)END QUOTE

Although I know it is considered schism, I’ll be honest that I’m still confused why it is schism and not heresy. The Orthodox Church denies certain truths that the Catholic Church teaches. Granted, not as many as all of the other churches, but it does deny certain doctrines. So, yeah, I’m still confused about that.

 

[otjm]

(1) I did not realize that the Eastern rites do not profess this…interesting. They do believe it though, right?

(2) Having said that, I do not think the main issue is whether we profess it during the liturgy as part of our profession of faith. I think the main issue is that the Orthodox Church does not BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, only the Son. That is a doctrinal difference, no? I don’t see an issue with them not professing it (as do our eastern brothers and sisters), but if they don’t believe the same way as we do, then, again, how would that = full communion?

(3) Their understanding and belief of Peter being the final arbiter is still very different than Catholic teaching.

Been too long since I took Greek; however, the issue as I understand it comes down to the Greek word, which has a somewhat different meaning than the Latin; in Greek, it would be heretical where in Latin it would not. As to their understanding and ours, I leave that to the theologians. Obviously, the Church holds that the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as understood by the West and the East is the same profession of faith. It is not a matter of lack of belief; it is a matter that they use the Greek language, which does not work; so the easier route is to not force the issue in the Creed. And keep in mind the Creed is the major points of faith. The issue over the filioque was not one of belief, but a question of whether or not the belief had to be inserted in the Creed, the point being that the Greek word did not convey the meaning correctly. So rather than make a heretical statement, they made none at all.

Another little bit - I was always taught that the Eucharist is confected by and at the words of consecration. However, the East (or at lest part of the Churches) hold that it may occur earlier; the Church as I understand it now has not defined specifically, but that it does occur is defined. The church has approved of an ancient rite that does not use the specific words of institution; I think that rattled a few cages when it was announced.

Again, when things get down to the level of the pew, it is not as sophisticated as what is understood in the upper reaches of theology; it is not that what we believe is not true; but out understanding is sometimes lacking in sophistication. Or if you will, nuance. We tend to look at doctrine as a blunt object when it may be more finely honed, if you will.

Again, it is a matter that if the Church (through Rome) says that it is not an issue, I leave it at that. I may not have the fine-tuned doctrinal explanation at my fingertips, but I can live with that; you may wish to explore further. Do be careful of your source, though. Not everyone who expounds on the matter is correct.

 

[otjm]

Fair enough otjm. Maybe I was being hard on you. I do think, however, that there are posters who say something similar and it’s a veiled way of coming into a thread and telling everyone how wrong they are for even talking about whatever the topic happens to be.

I don’t mean to do that. However, over a long period of time I have seen too many on these threads who seem to think, for whatever reason, that Rome can or has gone astray. That makes me - what, itchy?

 

[PJM]

=Lucky7;10702010]Although I know it is considered schism, I’ll be honest that I’m still confused why it is schism and not heresy. The Orthodox Church denies certain truths that the Catholic Church teaches. Granted, not as many as all of the other churches, but it does deny certain doctrines. So, yeah, I’m still confused about that.

I AGREE with you.
Here is MY OWN opinion.

Pope as the [single] leader of the World wide Church is savy enough not to “micro-manage”

The Church has Traditionally permitted certain “practice” differences to acount for cultural imputs. But even understanding that; the Primacy is a defined; biblically supported and historically proven reality. So it would seem that point as well as the Trintiy “debate” [ALSO a Doctrine] and defined ,would permit the term “heresy” to be rightly applied?

The fact that it is not; I believe is posturing in an effort for Unity. we simply are not privy to enough information to make the call ourselves.

God Bless,

I’ve enjoyed your post!

Pat/PJM

 

[Tomdstone]

Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary defines Schism and heresy in this manner:…
HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)END QUOTE

Does this then mean that the Orthodox are material heretics since they deny the infallibility of the Roman Pope?

 

[Tomdstone]

The filioque issues have already been worked out and the Catholic and Orthodox churches came to an agreement quite a few years ago. Rome stated that the filioque is a liturgical anomaly of the West…notice that the filioque is never used in a Catholic service served in Greek…and is not used in RC services in Greece or Russia. The filioque is basically a dead letter.

I don’t think that this is true. Many Orthodox do not accept the “agreement”. For example, according to the Greek Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Poimen:
“We have read the Agreed Statement on Filioque (as adopted by the North American Orthodox-Catholic consultation) and were appalled by how easily the Orthodox representatives of this consultation accepted a watered-down (at its best) and a sell-out (at its worst) of the 1,200-year old Orthodox position on Filioque… The subject 17-page document is busy reading yet devoid of any spiritual merit or value… Our Creed comprises a dogmatic expression of some of our most fundamental beliefs. Conclusively, the procession of the Holy Spirit is indeed a Church dogma. In accordance with Orthodox (as well as Latin) dictionaries, the term heresy denotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen… Since we are clearly dealing with the dogmatic corruption of the Holy Spirit’s procession (and as such the very origin and nature of the Holy Spirit), the Latins (or any other groups which have adopted the Filioque) are clearly heretical…
Should any group wish to re-unify with the Orthodox, all they have to do is abandon the heresies and return to the Mother Church. She has been awaiting their return with open arms for 1,000 years.”
“…Church History teaches us that, since St. Photios’ time, the gradual introduction of the Filioque and the insistence of the Latins on this heresy was directly intertwined with their will (one could say 1,400-year dream) of subduing Orthodoxy via the Pope’s primacy. It is a great error to separate the primacy and Filioque issues…”
oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/poimenbrother.html

 

[otjm]

Although I know it is considered schism, I’ll be honest that I’m still confused why it is schism and not heresy. The Orthodox Church denies certain truths that the Catholic Church teaches. Granted, not as many as all of the other churches, but it does deny certain doctrines. So, yeah, I’m still confused about that.

well, for starters, I don’t think there are too many (there are a few) in these forae who know with any degree of certainty what the Orthodox profess. It is easy to say "They don’t believe in “X” or “Y”, when, in fact, there may be more of a language issue than there is a fundamental disagreement. The church has said they are in schism. The
Church has not, to my understanding, made any formal declaration that they are in heresy. Their priesthood/line of bishops are recognized as valid; their sacraments are recognized as valid, and beyond that, it is a matter that I am inclined to leave in the hands of competent authority and not worry about.

The issues you have mentioned may be valid sticking points; but perhaps not for the reasons you may think. As noted, some of the disagreements go back to some not very pretty politics (as opposed to substance), miscommunications, and hardened positions.

Because of all of that, I would not say they are in heresy; a) it is not my place and b) those whose place it would be have not said so. and that is good enough for me; in the meanwhile I watch and pray.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think that this is true. Many Orthodox do not accept the “agreement”. For example, according to the Greek Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Poimen:
“We have read the Agreed Statement on Filioque (as adopted by the North American Orthodox-Catholic consultation) and were appalled by how easily the Orthodox representatives of this consultation accepted a watered-down (at its best) and a sell-out (at its worst) of the 1,200-year old Orthodox position on Filioque… The subject 17-page document is busy reading yet devoid of any spiritual merit or value… Our Creed comprises a dogmatic expression of some of our most fundamental beliefs. Conclusively, the procession of the Holy Spirit is indeed a Church dogma. In accordance with Orthodox (as well as Latin) dictionaries, the term heresy denotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen… Since we are clearly dealing with the dogmatic corruption of the Holy Spirit’s procession (and as such the very origin and nature of the Holy Spirit), the Latins (or any other groups which have adopted the Filioque) are clearly heretical…
Should any group wish to re-unify with the Orthodox, all they have to do is abandon the heresies and return to the Mother Church. She has been awaiting their return with open arms for 1,000 years.”
“…Church History teaches us that, since St. Photios’ time, the gradual introduction of the Filioque and the insistence of the Latins on this heresy was directly intertwined with their will (one could say 1,400-year dream) of subduing Orthodoxy via the Pope’s primacy. It is a great error to separate the primacy and Filioque issues…”
oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/poimenbrother.html

For starters, we need to identify who the Greek Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Poimen are. Are they monks? are they theologians? are they theologians which someone with some form of ultimate authority put forth as recognized authorities for the Orthodox? For some of the Orthodox?

And who, from the Orthodox chose the representatives to the North American Orthodox-Catholic consultation?

Basically, what I am getting at is the writer(s) of the statement could be the Orthodox equivalent of a Hans Kung, a Cardinal Ratzinger, or someone else. I would presume the representatives from the North American (or if you will Catholic) side were chosen by someone in the Curia, and not simply some theologians interested in the issue.

Without knowing the authority with which many of them speak, it is like wandering around in the theological countryside of the Church, bumping into experts and so-called experts, those who may be on one side or the other of, say, such an issue as women’s ordination. Unless one has some expertise in the matter, one can come across someone erudite and persuasive who would set forth an opinion that John Paul 2 did not definitively set the matter to rest, and they could argue strongly that the matter just has not had enough time to develop past the rigidness of misogynist individuals in Rome.

The Brotherhood has clearly turned up its nose at what went on within the consultation. My guess is that the consultation is working with those who have some authority within the Orthodox community, and the Brotherhood is caught in a mind trap/time warp that has not caught up with reality, and simply represent the nay-sayers.

And as not too subtle a point, many Catholics do not accept John Paul 2’s commentary and instruction on women’s ordination. And they carry about as much authority in the Church as the local postman.

Or maybe less.

I am just not sure about the postmen in the orthodox regions of the world…

Scooping around in Orthodox circles can be an interesting pastime. If one does not know the authority of the players, however, it would seem to be pointless. If the consultation is going on with the understanding and blessing of the Orthodox who make the decisions, then it may not matter a whole lot as to what others have to say. We have our own issues internally with the left and the right, and while they create a lot of heat and furor, they don’t make the decisions. Paying much attention to them is therefore not worth a lot of effort unless one finds it entertaining.

 

[johnthebaptist1]

I beleive that, as long as we all beleive in God, weather East or West,we are already united as one chuch,but their are people that think their religion is better than someone else.