Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches move towards unity?

[Scott_Lafrance]

Can we, in good conscience, as orthodox christians (lower case used here, to generalize to Catholics and Orthodox of the Apostolic Churches), ignore the direct prayers and pleas of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

I would argue that we dare not ignore the direct plea of our Lord and Savior.

 

[theidler]

Please do not be so insulting as to degrade serious theological matters, such as the very nature of the Church, to be mere semantics. And yes they are members of the Church by virtue of their baptism, but they are also in schism and imperfect communion with the Church.

Excuse me, but I am doing no such thing - Orthodox and Catholics believe in all the same central beliefs of the faith. I am referring here to the filioque controversy for the most part - some fathers in the east do not support it, some fathers in the west support it. I do not think God judges us on how we view the procession of the Holy Spirit - both essentially mean the same thing to me. It’s a difference in language.
And for that matter, I find much of the difference between us and the east is over politics and history more than anything else.
You can view them as schismatics all you like - they view us the same. All I am saying is that we are, at the base of it all, the same Church.

 

[theidler]

I would argue that we dare not ignore the direct plea of our Lord and Savior.

I would agree.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Excuse me, but I am doing no such thing - Orthodox and Catholics believe in all the same central beliefs of the faith. I am referring here to the filioque controversy for the most part - some fathers in the east do not support it, some fathers in the west support it. I do not think God judges us on how we view the procession of the Holy Spirit - both essentially mean the same thing to me. It’s a difference in language.
And for that matter, I find much of the difference between us and the east is over politics and history more than anything else.

You are making it worse. First, he differences between the East and West go beyond the Filioque. In fact I’m going to think the best of our Eastern cousins and say that they surely acknowledge that ridiculousness of that controversy.

No there are deeper things at work. And you cannot relegate to to the realms of semantics and politics.

You can view them as schismatics all you like - they view us the same. All I am saying is that we are, at the base of it all, the same Church.

Wrong.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You are making it worse. First, he differences between the East and West go beyond the Filioque. In fact I’m going to think the best of our Eastern cousins and say that they surely acknowledge that ridiculousness of that controversy.

No there are deeper things at work. And you cannot relegate to to the realms of semantics and politics.

Wrong.

LD - as one of your closest cousins, an Eastern Rite Catholic, I’m having a bit of trouble following your line of thought, and I’m curious at to your observations on some of the deeper issues that divide us and our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Since we, your Eastern Catholic brethren, recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed at every Divine Liturgy with no fear of reprisal from Rome (in fact, with the Pontiff’s full encouragement), we would certainly agree that the Filioque should not be an issue on our side in ecumenical exchange with the Orthodox. Pope Benedict XVI has recited the NCC publicly, in Greek and sans Filioque, together with his brother in Christ, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

As both the mode of theology and thought of Eastern tradition have been successfully reconciled in the past, and we in the 22 other sui juris Churches in the Catholic Communion (most of which having direct Orthodox “counterparts”) are actively and openly encouraged by Rome to fully embrace our traditions and Orthodox roots, we might also assume that doctrinal differences are not substantial. Even the ever popular “debate” over the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a tired subject, for example (although quite a few on CAF enjoy bringing this one up at every occasion, to assure 24/7 discussion).

It all comes down to the role of the Papacy …

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

LD - as one of your closest cousins, an Eastern Rite Catholic, I’m having a bit of trouble following your line of thought, and I’m curious at to your observations on some of the deeper issues that divide us and our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

You’re not my cousin, you’re my brother. You’re Catholic aren’t you?

Now besides views towards Holy Matrimony, healthy attitudes towards sex, the sanctity of life, some weird currents in the Eastern world (semipelagianism), etc., yes the role of the Bishop of Rome and Saint Peter is essentially the major stumbling block. But that cannot be relegated to be something as simple as semantics and politics.

The role of Peter goes to the very heart and nature of the Church. It influences every facet of the Christian life and Christ’s Church. It’s insulting to have such an issue treated as if it’s “no big deal” and we’re all just being children about it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You’re not my cousin, you’re my brother. You’re Catholic aren’t you?

Now besides views towards Holy Matrimony, healthy attitudes towards sex, the sanctity of life, some weird currents in the Eastern world (semipelagianism), etc., yes the role of the Bishop of Rome and Saint Peter is essentially the major stumbling block. But that cannot be relegated to be something as simple as semantics and politics.

The role of Peter goes to the very heart and nature of the Church. It influences every facet of the Christian life and Christ’s Church. It’s insulting to have such an issue treated as if it’s “no big deal” and we’re all just being children about it.

Thank you Brother, and I do agree - the role of the Papacy is no small matter. I think an argument can be made (although I seldom see it raised as such) that the “odd centrality” (as characterized by others) by which the Catholic Church is governed actually ensured its survival through a turbulent 2000+ year history, provided a means for effective and reasonably consistent global evangelization and was a tremendous asset in maintaining the Deposit of Faith. We didn’t always get it right (the people, that is), but the numbers of faithful worldwide speak for themselves.

The Orthodox Churches suffer from global and regional fractionalization, and would admit to such in honest dialogue. Geopolitical events and the dispersion of peoples have had more lingering effects on Orthodoxy than on Catholicism as a consequence. The Orthodox Churches in America provide a good example: independent Orthodox; Russian Orthodox under the Partriarch of Moscow; Russian Orthodox (former Greek Catholics) under the Ecumenical Patriarch; etc. BTW - I mean no disrespect and I’m not being at all critical here - this is all a result of very difficult challenges and circumstances, some of which still effect my own Eastern Catholic Church as well.

If you saw the 60 Minutes piece a few months ago on the Ecumenical Patriarch, it was plain how he lives almost as a prisoner in his own land - truly sad. The number of faithful in that country is down to the thousands, in the very cradle of Byzantine Christian tradition. The so-called secular government of Turkey displays a constant distain for the Christian population, and the Patriarchiate of Constantinople is in danger of extinction as a consequence.

While I do not mean to suggest that the Catholic Church could have prevented this, there are other examples (including in my faith tradition, in the Eastern European countries) where the constancy of the Catholic Church in similar instances brought hope to all those who suffered suppression and oppression, as they were denied the fundamental right to worship God. The ability for the Catholic Church as a whole to remain intact and provide that hope has sustained many in their faith in those circumstances. This is what the unity of the Catholic Church has brought, and what the unity of the Apostolic Churches can more braodly bring in the future, if we open our hearts and heed Christ’s prayerful call that we “all be as one”.

Pax Christi!

 

[theidler]

You are making it worse. First, he differences between the East and West go beyond the Filioque. In fact I’m going to think the best of our Eastern cousins and say that they surely acknowledge that ridiculousness of that controversy.

No there are deeper things at work. And you cannot relegate to to the realms of semantics and politics.

Wrong.

Thank you for your overwhelming charity:blush:. I have reported your post to the mods as quite rude - there is no need to treat me like that for merely wishing for unity. I am not saying there are no significant differences, I am just saying that the love of Christ should overcome these differences.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Moderator NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

if we open our hearts and heed Christ’s prayerful call that we “all be as one”.

We’re not stopping them from coming home to Rome. Our arms are already wide open for them .

I think this is something else that bothers me. And I am not accusing you of doing so, or at least intentionally. When people talk of reunion of Moscow, Constantinople, etc., with Rome, they always speak as if Rome and Catholics are also in some manner or another opposing communion. Doctrinally and dogmatically, we’re sound. We’re right. This is why we’re the Church. We don’t need to change any of this. The people that need to change and accept are the Eastern Orthodox. We didn’t schism from each other. They went into schism themselves.

The Church’s very mission is to be the arc of salvation in the world. She calls all people to her for the good of their souls. We’re already open. But I think people need to be careful when they say that we need to be “more open” as it were. It implies that there must be some sort of compromise by our end which simply cannot be. Truth is Truth.

However there are a lot of cultural and historical hangups. The Sack of Constantinople, the Massacre of the Latins, etc., We do need to pray to overcome these things. Yes, they were horrible, they happened centuries ago. We’ll never get anywhere if we keep arguing about rubbish like that.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thank you for your overwhelming charity:blush:. I have reported your post to the mods as quite rude - there is no need to treat me like that for merely wishing for unity. I am not saying there are no significant differences, I am just saying that the love of Christ should overcome these differences.

Uncharitable? Rude? Please. It was nothing of the kind.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

We’re right. This is why we’re the Church. We don’t need to change any of this. The people that need to change and accept are the Eastern Orthodox. We didn’t schism from each other. They went into schism themselves.

I do not think that the Orthodox accept your position. They use the very same charges against Catholicism.

The Church’s very mission is to be the arc of salvation in the world. She calls all people to her for the good of their souls. We’re already open. But I think people need to be careful when they say that we need to be “more open” as it were. It implies that there must be some sort of compromise by our end which simply cannot be. Truth is Truth.

Again, just as we say that we have the Truth, so also do the Orthodox. Two sides that are not willing to budge.

Yes, they were horrible, they happened centuries ago. We’ll never get anywhere if we keep arguing about rubbish like that.

Hardly rubbish to the Orthodox.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

I do not think that the Orthodox accept your position. They use the very same charges against Catholicism.

Again, just as we say that we have the Truth, so also do the Orthodox. Two sides that are not willing to budge.

So? They’re still wrong, we’re still right. It doesn’t matter what they believe. This is objective truth.

Hardly rubbish to the Orthodox.

Indeed. They are quite childish about it.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Indeed. They are quite childish about it.

We wouldn’t consider it childish if the Byzantines invaded Rome, raided St Peter’s Basilica, and left the city weakened for the Muslim invaders to take over.

But I do believe we must transcend the events of the past.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

We wouldn’t consider it childish if the Byzantines invaded Rome, raided St Peter’s Basilica, and left the city weakened for the Muslim invaders to take over.

The Byzantines were not innocent in the Sack. It happened because the Emperor refused to pay his debt to the Venetians. If their leaders were not back-stabbing double-speakers, the Sack would never have happened. And a lot of the animosity amongst the Crusaders was born of the Massacre of the Latins, when the Byzantines turned on innocent Latin Catholics in the city. Again because of their leaders.

Do you want to talk about abandoning fellow Christians to the Muslims? How about when the Byzantines turned back half-way through the First Crusade leaving the Latin Franks knee-deep in enemy territory? And when the Greek was sipping wine with the Turk whilst western men bled to defend them, they had the sheer gall to demand the lands that were won by Latin blood.

See what happened there? There’s two sides to every story. But in the end, it really doesn’t matter. We’re dealing with God, His Church and our immortal souls. Some things simply pale in comparison.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The Byzantines were not innocent in the Sack. It happened because the Emperor refused to pay his debt to the Venetians. If their leaders were not back-stabbing double-speakers, the Sack would never have happened. And a lot of the animosity amongst the Crusaders was born of the Massacre of the Latins, when the Byzantines turned on innocent Latin Catholics in the city. Again because of their leaders.

Do you want to talk about abandoning fellow Christians to the Muslims? How about when the Byzantines turned back half-way through the First Crusade leaving the Latin Franks knee-deep in enemy territory? And when the Greek was sipping wine with the Turk whilst western men bled to defend them, they had the sheer gall to demand the lands that were won by Latin blood.

See what happened there? There’s two sides to every story. But in the end, it really doesn’t matter. We’re dealing with God, His Church and our immortal souls. Some things simply pale in comparison.

I’m not saying that because I believe we are the only party at fault. I say that because that is how they view it. There are always two sides, but what I wish to illustrate is that there is nothing ‘childish’ about all these tragic incidents of the past. We need to overcome them, but we cannot be so dismissive of them.

Nonetheless, I thank you for that informative post about some of the other pivotal incidents between East and West.

 

[stevegravy]

I’m not saying that because I believe we are the only party at fault. I say that because that is how they view it. There are always two sides, but what I wish to illustrate is that there is nothing ‘childish’ about all these tragic incidents of the past. We need to overcome them, but we cannot be so dismissive of them.

Nonetheless, I thank you for that informative post about some of the other pivotal incidents between East and West.

Look the hatred in the catholic/orthodox controversy is palatable whether we (here in America) like it or not. If you want to see the world you have to deal with take a trip to the Balkans.

politicalforum.com/russia-eastern-europe/?daysprune=365

The killing didn’t stop centuries ago ….Coats as part of the Ustasa murdering Serbs in WWII was it political, ie nazi vs communist, secular/ tribal Croats vs Serbs or religious catholic vs orthodox. This whole thing is complicated since the killing resumed in the 1990’s still going on today just under the radar.
Theologically there always been points of disagreement but IMHO the hatred stems from sinister nationalist power/wealth/land controversies ever since Illyria was overrun during the falling days of the Roman Empire.

Everyone thinks the next world war will start in the Middle East and it may very well but, it also wouldn’t surprise me if it started in the Balkans.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So? They’re still wrong, we’re still right. It doesn’t matter what they believe. This is objective truth.

Yes, so we believe, but such an adamant position doesn’t do anything for reconciliation. Which is why I do not believe that there will EVER be any reconciliation; neither will give an inch.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yes, so we believe, but such an adamant position doesn’t do anything for reconciliation.

If a man sleeps with his brother’s wife, should the brother soften his position to be reconciled with the offending brother even when the offending brother is the one clearly in the wrong?

Which is why I do not believe that there will EVER be any reconciliation; neither will give an inch.

Russia will definitely convert. We know that much.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If a man sleeps with his brother’s wife, should the brother soften his position to be reconciled with the offending brother even when the offending brother is the one clearly in the wrong?

How valuable is reconciliation to the brother?

Russia will definitely convert. We know that much.

No, we don’t. Though, it is true that more and more Russians are returning to the Orthodox Church.