Reuniting all the Churches of Christ, East and West

[Lucky7]

Although I agree that we don’t really know who that Orthodox group is that Tomdstone posted and whether what they are saying is accurate, I tend to believe what they wrote because they say we are the ones in heresy. This jives with the fact that the Orthodox do not allow us to receive communion in their churches. Whether that is because of the Filioque or something else or because of that and a lot of other things, we are heretics in their book. I find it fascinating that they consider us heretics and we merely find them schismatics.

So, taking it from their perspective instead of ours, they think we need to come to agreement with them…lol. This is why I say this reuniting stuff is not something that is as simple as oh, we’ll change how the papacy works or some such other relatively minor changes compared to dogmatic/doctrinal changes.

Both sides think they are the True Church. Let’s not fool ourselves…that is NOT easily reconcilable. I think I’m going to go back to … there is going to need to be a miraculous intervention by God on this one.

 

[Lucky7]

And Tomdstone, I am sorry in advance if I ever call you tombstone because when I look quickly at your sig name that is what I see…

 

[PJM]

=Tomdstone;10702826]Does this then mean that the Orthodox are material heretics since they deny the infallibility of the Roman Pope?

I’m NOT a Theologian; Father was.

But they SEEM to meet the criteria IMO

 

[Lucky7]

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

I wonder if the timing of the promulgation of this doctrine has anything to do with why the Orthodox is not called heretical based on it. Although the Church has always believed in papal infallibility, it was not promulgated until 1870 (Vatican I) …way after the Great Schism in 1054.

 

[PJM]

=Lucky7;10704158]I wonder if the timing of the promulgation of this doctrine has anything to do with why the Orthodox is not called heretical based on it. Although the Church has always believed in papal infallibility, it was not promulgated until 1870 (Vatican I) …way after the Great Schism in 1054.

As a define Dogma; yes;

BUT it has ALWAYS been held in Sacred Tradition:thumbsup:

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

 

[otjm]

Although I agree that we don’t really know who that Orthodox group is that Tomdstone posted and whether what they are saying is accurate, I tend to believe what they wrote because they say we are the ones in heresy. This jives with the fact that the Orthodox do not allow us to receive communion in their churches. Whether that is because of the Filioque or something else or because of that and a lot of other things, we are heretics in their book. I find it fascinating that they consider us heretics and we merely find them schismatics.

Keep in mind what I was trying to say: one needs to know the authority that a writer has in order to begin to judge the weight of their statement. There are members within the Roman rite who hold that the Roman rite has made heretical statements. Capiche?

So, taking it from their perspective instead of ours, they think we need to come to agreement with them…lol. This is why I say this reuniting stuff is not something that is as simple as oh, we’ll change how the papacy works or some such other relatively minor changes compared to dogmatic/doctrinal changes.

It is my firmly held belief that the issues between the Orthodox and the church can be healed. It is also my observation that @ 1000 years of separation is going to be very difficult to heal. Keep in mind that The Church went through some struggles prior to Vatican 2; in essence, the Eastern rites which had reunited with the Roman rite had undergone a process called “Latinization” which Vatican 2, and John Paul 2 after it sought to reverse. In addition, the Eastern rites have their own Code of law separate and distinct from the Western code. So it is possible that without denying any doctrine, the Papacy may choose to interact and react differently with the Orthodox (and Eastern rites) differently than it would with the Western rite(s, since there are several); the principle of subsidiarity comes to mind. Leaving matters more to the Patriarchs certainly is not a denial of anything coming out of Vatican 1.

Both sides think they are the True Church. Let’s not fool ourselves…that is NOT easily reconcilable. I think I’m going to go back to … there is going to need to be a miraculous intervention by God on this one.

I think you are right. part of what is not clear is to what extent authority is acknowledged within the Orthodox. For example, groups of monks may be far more resistant to reconciliation than priests and bishops.

And my guess is the Greek Orthodox may have an easier time of coming to the table than the Russian Orthodox.

 

[Lucky7]

Keep in mind what I was trying to say: one needs to know the authority that a writer has in order to begin to judge the weight of their statement.

From the Orthodox Church of America site (aka American Bishops of the OC):

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

Concerning whether Roman Catholicism is considered a heresy: Orthodox Christianity in general would view certain aspects of Roman Catholic teaching as heretical. The filioque is the classic example of this, although the Vatican a few years ago has made this addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed an option even, if I am not mistaken, for Latin Rite Catholics. Most Byzantine Rite liturgical books I have seen of late either do not include the filioque or include it in brackets, indicating that it is optional. Orthodox Christianity also rejects such teachings as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, and other uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines.

So, it certainly looks like official Orthodox belief is that the CC is heretical in many of their beliefs.

 

[otjm]

From the Orthodox Church of America site (aka American Bishops of the OC):

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

Concerning whether Roman Catholicism is considered a heresy: Orthodox Christianity in general would view certain aspects of Roman Catholic teaching as heretical. The filioque is the classic example of this, although the Vatican a few years ago has made this addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed an option even, if I am not mistaken, for Latin Rite Catholics. Most Byzantine Rite liturgical books I have seen of late either do not include the filioque or include it in brackets, indicating that it is optional. Orthodox Christianity also rejects such teachings as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, and other uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines.

So, it certainly looks like official Orthodox belief is that the CC is heretical in many of their beliefs.

I think the article makes a good point that there is anything but strong consistency within Orthodox circles. And yes, on certain points, there is the position that the Catholic Church is heretical. Again, I would make the point that Rome clearly has chosen to not address the Orthodox in terms of heresy, and maintain there is a schismatic break between the two. Rome has also acknowledged that both sides had a hand in the original split; it was not a simple matter of the Orthodox wandering away from us. There is plenty of blame for us too in the whole matter.

Again, some of that has to do with both language and (sorry, I don’t have the technical term) mode or methodology; language, because Greek (and I would presume, Russian) may not have identical meanings during translations, and mode or methodology; the West tends to focus primarily on a scholastic approach to theology (though certainly not exclusively, as both JP2 and B16 have shown) and the Orthodox (as well as Eastern rites) are far more in the mode of mystical. And errors can occur on both sides in looking at the other side; both can be speaking the truth and yet perceive the other as speaking heresy.

 

[PJM]

=otjm;10704660]Keep in mind what I was trying to say: one needs to know the authority that a writer has in order to begin to judge the weight of their statement. There are members within the Roman rite who hold that the Roman rite has made heretical statements. Capiche?

It is my firmly held belief that the issues between the Orthodox and the church can be healed. It is also my observation that @ 1000 years of separation is going to be very difficult to heal. Keep in mind that The Church went through some struggles prior to Vatican 2; in essence, the Eastern rites which had reunited with the Roman rite had undergone a process called “Latinization” which Vatican 2, and John Paul 2 after it sought to reverse. In addition, the Eastern rites have their own Code of law separate and distinct from the Western code. So it is possible that without denying any doctrine, the Papacy may choose to interact and react differently with the Orthodox (and Eastern rites) differently than it would with the Western rite(s, since there are several); the principle of subsidiarity comes to mind. Leaving matters more to the Patriarchs certainly is not a denial of anything coming out of Vatican 1.

I think you are right. part of what is not clear is to what extent authority is acknowledged within the Orthodox. For example, groups of monks may be far more resistant to reconciliation than priests and bishops.

And my guess is the Greek Orthodox may have an easier time of coming to the table than the Russian Orthodox.

Both the original and the reply herre are excellent.

The only point I would add is that both Sacred Scripture and History support the RCC and the Pope being the One COMPLETELY True [has to be singular] church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And my guess is the Greek Orthodox may have an easier time of coming to the table than the Russian Orthodox.

It’s probably the other way around, if anything. The Russians act coldly, but their intellectual tradition is the most amenable to the West in general. The Greeks are cordial, but they have a fundamentalist tendency to them.

 

[otjm]

It’s probably the other way around, if anything. The Russians act coldly, but their intellectual tradition is the most amenable to the West in general. The Greeks are cordial, but they have a fundamentalist tendency to them.

The reason for my guess is that there may be some old issues they need to deal with internally, starting in about 1917…

 

[Tomdstone]

And Tomdstone, I am sorry in advance if I ever call you tombstone because when I look quickly at your sig name that is what I see…

Tombstone - that is funny. It is not a problem at all.

 

[Lucky7]

I think the article makes a good point that there is anything but strong consistency within Orthodox circles. And yes, on certain points, there is the position that the Catholic Church is heretical. Again, I would make the point that Rome clearly has chosen to not address the Orthodox in terms of heresy, and maintain there is a schismatic break between the two. Rome has also acknowledged that both sides had a hand in the original split; it was not a simple matter of the Orthodox wandering away from us. There is plenty of blame for us too in the whole matter.

Again, some of that has to do with both language and (sorry, I don’t have the technical term) mode or methodology; language, because Greek (and I would presume, Russian) may not have identical meanings during translations, and mode or methodology; the West tends to focus primarily on a scholastic approach to theology (though certainly not exclusively, as both JP2 and B16 have shown) and the Orthodox (as well as Eastern rites) are far more in the mode of mystical. And errors can occur on both sides in looking at the other side; both can be speaking the truth and yet perceive the other as speaking heresy.

I wasn’t using my last quote from the OCA to push for calling the OC heretical. Just to show that the OC does see us as heretical (which I find fascinating). It is true that there is no consistency within Orthodox circles, but what I posted came from the Orthodox bishops in America. I’m thinking it’s fairly safe to say that they know what they’re talking about when referring to the CC as heretical. Just as that would be a strong statement for our American bishops to say about any other church. In other words, they wouldn’t say it unless it was what their church truly believed.

As for your second paragraph, I’m not just talking about the Filioque (and different language translations of it). I’m talking about a number of issues that the two churches disagree on (which were also partly mentioned by the OCA bishops as being heretical on our part).

 

[angelic06]

I’m going to step out on a limb here and be a wee bit frank, and hopefully my post here won’t offend many.

As an outsider looking in, it’s been my experience that the strong desires for unity are more heavily felt by the clergy and the upper-ranking hierarchs of the various churches (particularly so between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox).

The rank-and-file lay folk, on the other hand, tend to be more inimical to reunion (particularly so on the Orthodox hand). I’ve heard various, self-proclaimed “dyed-in-the-wool” Catholics who have essentially said that they do not want to see reunion until Orthodox essentially become Catholics (including but not limited to using the filioque in the creed, having celibate priests, etc.).

I’ve heard much the same (if not even more polemical) from the Orthodox. It’s for this reason that I suspect any attempts at reunion by the hierarchs will be met with even more schism by vociferously anti-the-other-side lay people. The Orthodox would likely depose their bishops who agreed to such reunion, and the Catholics who are against such would just form more SSPX-like groups.

Just my $0.02.

That is my sense of the Orthodox bishops as well-that those who agreed to some kind of reunion would be deposed.

Nevertheless, from a Christian point of view, we must still strive for unity, as Christianity’s founder Jesus Christ desired (“that all may be one”), even if the fruit is not as we would want it.

 

[otjm]

I wasn’t using my last quote from the OCA to push for calling the OC heretical. Just to show that the OC does see us as heretical (which I find fascinating). It is true that there is no consistency within Orthodox circles, but what I posted came from the Orthodox bishops in America. I’m thinking it’s fairly safe to say that they know what they’re talking about when referring to the CC as heretical. Just as that would be a strong statement for our American bishops to say about any other church. In other words, they wouldn’t say it unless it was what their church truly believed.

Our bishops (short of one or more who might go out on a limb) pretty much are going to take their directyion from Rome. I am not convinced that the Orthodox are as well organized and disciplined (back to that old authority issue); so I have less concern if a group of bishops make statements. I am sure there is a large if not overwhelming number of Orthodox - laity, priests and bishops - who may feel that the Catholic Church is in heresy.

Interestingly, there are members of the Orthodox, presumably with the permission of the Patriarchs, who are engaged in dialogue with the Catholic Church; I sort of doubt they are simply renegades out on their own. How it works out, or if it works out, is way below my pay grade.

As for your second paragraph, I’m not just talking about the Filioque (and different language translations of it). I’m talking about a number of issues that the two churches disagree on (which were also partly mentioned by the OCA bishops as being heretical on our part).

I was too; I use the Filioque as a point of reference. Again, when it gets down to where the rubber meets the road, some or all of it may be resolved without anyone going into heresy; and what may be particularly the means may be through a better understanding based on language and approach.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because we have Eastern Catholic Rites, Orthodox will be able to worship in a familiar way when they rejoin the Catholic Church. That is a big step right there.

We have Western Rites so you Catholics can worship in something similar when you finally accept Orthodoxy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the article makes a good point that there is anything but strong consistency within Orthodox circles. And yes, on certain points, there is the position that the Catholic Church is heretical. Again, I would make the point that Rome clearly has chosen to not address the Orthodox in terms of heresy, and maintain there is a schismatic break between the two. Rome has also acknowledged that both sides had a hand in the original split; it was not a simple matter of the Orthodox wandering away from us. There is plenty of blame for us too in the whole matter.

Again, some of that has to do with both language and (sorry, I don’t have the technical term) mode or methodology; language, because Greek (and I would presume, Russian) may not have identical meanings during translations, and mode or methodology; the West tends to focus primarily on a scholastic approach to theology (though certainly not exclusively, as both JP2 and B16 have shown) and the Orthodox (as well as Eastern rites) are far more in the mode of mystical. And errors can occur on both sides in looking at the other side; both can be speaking the truth and yet perceive the other as speaking heresy.

The Filioque is consistently rejected as heresy throughout the Orthodox Church. I don’t know what lack of consistency you are talking about. Can you clarify?

The Orthodox isn’t claiming innocence on the issue. The Great Schism is a long and complicated series of events that p(name removed by moderator)ointing one event, one issue, one specific point in time, is overtly simplifying the matter and actually takes away from the reality of it. The fact is that there has been a rift between Rome and Constantinople growing for a long time, some even p(name removed by moderator)oint it to as early as the 600s. And there is evidence of Latins being given Communion in the churches in Constantinople up until the day before the Fall.

You are right about the issue of language being one of the issues, but it isn’t simply semantics. Even today with the benefit of better translations and translators, we find that what we actually believe are far apart from one another. This is a bigger issue than what the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have where we’re at the point that we are starting to acknowledge that the problem is semantics but the core faith is the same. Rome changed a lot as a result of the Reformation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think there will be a reuniting if Islam vanquishes Greece

That already happened and no reunion ever occurred.

and Russia and is marching on Rome.

I can see most of the other Orthodox Churches reuniting with Rome, but not Russia. Sadly, the Patriarch of Moscow has “Papal” ambitions of his own.

Maybe that will be the great chastisement and the “great monarch” will vanquish those forces and the Church will be triumphant for a time and it will be the age of Mary–after that maybe comes the anti-Christ and the end when Christ returns.

The age of Mary?

Maybe all that scenario is wrong–but for some reason I do believe that Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic will all reunite before Jesus returns. Is a hope for that well founded?

There is an Orthodox saint I believe who prophesized that there will be a partial union, but not full.

 

[otjm]

The Filioque is consistently rejected as heresy throughout the Orthodox Church. I don’t know what lack of consistency you are talking about. Can you clarify?

I was responding to the article in general (post 66); the writer speaks not as a unified position, but as of variances. I understand the filioque is rejected throughout. And it is my impression that Rome got over the issue.

The Orthodox isn’t claiming innocence on the issue. The Great Schism is a long and complicated series of events that p(name removed by moderator)ointing one event, one issue, one specific point in time, is overtly simplifying the matter and actually takes away from the reality of it. The fact is that there has been a rift between Rome and Constantinople growing for a long time, some even p(name removed by moderator)oint it to as early as the 600s. And there is evidence of Latins being given Communion in the churches in Constantinople up until the day before the Fall.

Ah. I knew that it went back at least to the 800’s, but not that far back. The US is perhaps a bit unique in that we have such a short history. It truly amazes me how long some people’s memories are of ancient slights and wrongs. Perhaps our best example is the Civil War. But when you start going back centuries upon centuries, the hardening up is something to behold.

You are right about the issue of language being one of the issues, but it isn’t simply semantics. Even today with the benefit of better translations and translators, we find that what we actually believe are far apart from one another. This is a bigger issue than what the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have where we’re at the point that we are starting to acknowledge that the problem is semantics but the core faith is the same. Rome changed a lot as a result of the Reformation.

I don’t mean to make t so simple that an undergraduate with a degree in Religious studies could solve it! But from what little I have observed, the theological underpinnings are so different and the approach is so different that everyone in the room could be agreeing and few or none realizing it.

And you are right; the Protestant break definitely formed up outlooks and approaches, without much if any (name removed by moderator)ut from the East. We got so busy cleaning our own house, that we may not have been aware of the dust cloud we were stirring up.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was responding to the article in general (post 66); the writer speaks not as a unified position, but as of variances. I understand the filioque is rejected throughout. And it is my impression that Rome got over the issue.

Well, Rome says it is not a big deal but the Orthodox say it is. If the issue is not a big deal to Rome, why not just drop the Filioque? They agreed to the Creed as is stated in the Second Ecumenical Council, there is nothing wrong for them to accept a form without the Filioque as they have already done so in the past.

Ah. I knew that it went back at least to the 800’s, but not that far back. The US is perhaps a bit unique in that we have such a short history. It truly amazes me how long some people’s memories are of ancient slights and wrongs. Perhaps our best example is the Civil War. But when you start going back centuries upon centuries, the hardening up is something to behold.

Some would even say the issue goes all the way back to St. Constantine the Great moving the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople, Or the Third Ecumenical Council when Constantinople was granted the rank of Patriarchate second to Rome. It really is a long and interesting story, which also gives us the realization that healing the wounds is a pretty tall task, if not impossible.

I don’t mean to make t so simple that an undergraduate with a degree in Religious studies could solve it! But from what little I have observed, the theological underpinnings are so different and the approach is so different that everyone in the room could be agreeing and few or none realizing it.

I made it a point as part of my discernment on my conversion to look as some of the issues closely, that is why I can say that the differences are far from subtle. Even though the words themselves may seem to only be nuances from one another, the underlying understanding is really far apart.

And you are right; the Protestant break definitely formed up outlooks and approaches, without much if any (name removed by moderator)ut from the East. We got so busy cleaning our own house, that we may not have been aware of the dust cloud we were stirring up.

There is a podcast by Fr. Tom Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio where he talked about how Western scholasticism changed during the Reformation. I was shocked and never realized it had such an impact. There was a tremendous shift in worldview and people started looking at things in a different way. A big chunk of the discussion was around how “history” was defined and how we consider things to be factual or not. If you look today, you see people question the validity of Scripture based on inconsistencies of certain accounts, like the birth of Christ or His Resurrection. But those inconsistencies were unquestioned for ages. They just look at witness accounts in a whole different light back then and people really do have a different way of reasoning and analyzing things.