The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[Julia_Mae]

Then in this point we disagree. Every time I have to learn about something from the Orthodox, it takes me a while to get out of my “Latin mindset” to fully understand what they are teaching. It is completely different and incompatible, as far as I can see.

That’s interesting. Every time I learn something from the Orthodox, once I understand the meanings of unfamiliar words, it makes perfect sense to me in how I understand the deposit of faith.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Constantine,

Then in this point we disagree. Every time I have to learn about something from the Orthodox, it takes me a while to get out of my “Latin mindset” to fully understand what they are teaching. It is completely different and incompatible, as far as I can see. Of course I am not an expert on the matter, but if they are that easily reconcilable why are we in schism for 1000 years?

You act as if the imperative to be disunited because of these differences existed for that long. The fact is, a LOT of these distinctions existed between the Latins and the Easterns even BEFORE the schism in the second millenium, yet they did not affect unity. It is only certain voices in both Churches who think these distinctions merit disunity, and this imperative has only existed maybe a century? Why should we listen to these people?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrueLight]

Dear brother Constantine,

You act as if the imperative to be disunited because of these differences existed for that long. The fact is, a LOT of these distinctions existed between the Latins and the Easterns even BEFORE the schism in the second millenium, yet they did not affect unity. It is only certain voices in both Churches who think these distinctions merit disunity, and this imperative has only existed maybe a century? Why should we listen to these people?

Blessings,
Marduk

However, we now have the Internet. Before few of the faithful were even aware of what was being taught yonder. Heck, it even took time for the Bishops to be aware of things.

Now everyone has access and it becomes really important to clarify things.

 

[mardukm]

I hope this is not proof texting where we say “I don’t find that exact word in the dogma, therefore the dogma does not say it.” Here is what the dogma says:

So if he has power over ALL the pastors, how is that first among equals?

As stated, as far as the power of jurisdiction is concerned, the statement “first among equals” is invalid. But it is valid in other contexts, so the Vatican Council cannot generally anathemize the statement itself, or generally anathemize someone who makes that statement, for, as noted, it is indeed true in other contexts according to Catholic ecclesiology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

However, we now have the Internet. Before few of the faithful were even aware of what was being taught yonder. Heck, it even took time for the Bishops to be aware of things.

Now everyone has access and it becomes really important to clarify things.

Clarifying what one means does not necessitate an imperative to be disunited. These were not matters that Eastern or Western Fathers hundreds of years after the formal schism thought were matters that deserved attention, at least not enough to merit any conciliar decree, though the differences in praxis already existed. Who are these people now to claim they do merit disunity? They are certainly not basing it on Tradition, but a novel heart of schism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrueLight]

Clarifying what one means does not necessitate an imperative to be disunited.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, I didn’t say that. But I admit I didn’t read all the prior posts. What I’m saying is that we live in a different time. Something that might not have raised questions then, might today because we live in a different world.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

However, we now have the Internet. Before few of the faithful were even aware of what was being taught yonder. Heck, it even took time for the Bishops to be aware of things.

Now everyone has access and it becomes really important to clarify things.

and it is 100 times more difficult to get that clarity (especially if one relies indiscriminately on data found on the “misinformation superspeedway” …)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The fact is, a LOT of these distinctions existed between the Latins and the Easterns even BEFORE the schism in the second millenium, yet they did not affect unity.

so often is this overlooked

FWIW the Catholic Church strives to achieve the ideal of “unity in diversity” in the context of the current Communion, not with complete success, but with proper intent

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How much difference is there between Greek Orthodox views on what would be necessary for reunification with Rome versus Russian Orthodox views on what would be necessary for reunification with Rome?

Would it be possible for reunification of one branch of the Orthox without the other?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother Constantine,

You act as if the imperative to be disunited because of these differences existed for that long. The fact is, a LOT of these distinctions existed between the Latins and the Easterns even BEFORE the schism in the second millenium, yet they did not affect unity. It is only certain voices in both Churches who think these distinctions merit disunity, and this imperative has only existed maybe a century? Why should we listen to these people?

Blessings,
Marduk

Did it not? I think you are looking at the unity from a shallow perspective. You look at it as, “hey, there’s no schism. Then everything else must be great.” But every Orthodox historian has pointed out that whether 1054 or the time of St. Photius the Great, it has already been an uneasy relationship between the East and West. In fact, the canons of the Council of Trullo has emphasized on differentiating the praxis of the East as opposed to the praxis of the West. Schism was not formalized but it doesn’t mean either side was happy with how the other side was developing into.

As stated, as far as the power of jurisdiction is concerned, the statement “first among equals” is invalid. But it is valid in other contexts, so the Vatican Council cannot generally anathemize the statement itself, or generally anathemize someone who makes that statement, for, as noted, it is indeed true in other contexts according to Catholic ecclesiology.

Blessings,
Marduk

Do we really buy into this kind of verbal calisthenics? C’mon, as archaic as may be the wordings of Pastor Aeternus, we all know that the words could hardly be interpreted into something that will equate “First Among Equals,” which is what the Orthodox want. There is no way someone your equal can also be one who has ordinary power over you and your entire Church. I do not know in what universe that is seen as equality.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How much difference is there between Greek Orthodox views on what would be necessary for reunification with Rome versus Russian Orthodox views on what would be necessary for reunification with Rome?

Would it be possible for reunification of one branch of the Orthox without the other?

No it is impossible. Unless one Church feels that the communion with the others is not as important as communion with Rome. If Constantinople enters into communion with Rome, they will definitely lose communion with Russia, and any other Orthodox Church who are not in communion with Rome. Unless Constantinople is okay with that, she will never enter into communion with Rome without her sister Orthodox Churches. At this point it is a “all or nothing” deal.

Recently the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had a strong call for unity with Rome and has pledged to accelerate the process. One may interpret this that the Bulgarian Orthodox may want communion now, but as they are no willing to sever ties with other Orthodox they cannot do it by themselves. So they wait for all Orthodoxy to agree to come into communion with Rome together.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here is what Metropolitan Kallistos has to say about the difference between Catholics and Orthodox:

Christians in the west, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different - the questions themselves are not the same as in the west.

Orthodoxy see history in another perspective.

–from The Orthodox Church

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Would it be possible for reunification of one branch of the Orthox without the other?
*

No it is impossible.

And, even if it were possible, it is no longer something that Catholics are pursuing. Take the Balamand Statement (aka “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion”, 1993) for example. In other words, there’s not going to be another Union of Brest.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And, even if it were possible, it is no longer something that Catholics are pursuing. Take the Balamand Statement (aka “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion”, 1993) for example. In other words, there’s not going to be another Union of Brest.

Neither side favors a “piece work” approach. The more recent and relevant reference in this regard, perhaps, is the in reaction to the effort stemming from the Zoghby Initiative, which drew cautious yet firm statements from each side affirming that a complete and doctrinal unity is preferred.

Vico provided an excerpt and link to the responses of the various Curial Congregations of Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox Synod recently in another thread:

Congregation for the Eastern Churches responded:“In summary, the fraternal dialogue undertaken by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate will be better able to serve the ecumenical dialogue to the degree that it strives to involve the entire Catholic Church to which it belongs in the maturing of new sensitivities. There is good reason to believe that the Orthodox in general so share the same worry, due also to the obligations of communion within their own body.”
About it:
cin.org/east/melkite.html

That said, practically speaking and as being once again demonstrated at present, as the Russian Orthodox Church goes, so will the effort to reunite.

 

[Marybeloved]

That’s interesting. Every time I learn something from the Orthodox, once I understand the meanings of unfamiliar words, it makes perfect sense to me in how I understand the deposit of faith.

That’s mostly my experience too, apart from a few things which needed much more explanation than others, some still do (like the oikonomia practice in divorce etc). Sometimes people call a caricature they have from reading too much polemical anti-catholic arguments ‘‘latin’’- But tell them to explain to you just what that latin teaching, perspective, or theology they are talking about is and you’ll be shocked at what is said back to you- A phantom Catholicism that you, the Latin Catholic, do not recognize. Any well catechized Catholic notices the caricature right away, and most immediately recognize the teaching of the Orthodox as matching their own Catholic understanding in most things.

I’ve noticed a consistent trend here at CAF for many years. Sometimes, in a debate, you have someone straining to prove this ‘‘vast’’ ‘‘unbridgeable’’ differences, so they’re simply asked to clarify that position and where or how it differs from the Catholic position. Then you see real interesting gymnastics, because a lot of times the only way they can do that is to misrepresent the Catholic position in order to claim a difference. The right position is thereby ‘‘owned’’ by the non-Catholic side and they have to force Catholicism to assume the false, incoherent position in the argument, so that they can say, See? An unmendable gap! Other times, they can even force the Orthodox side into the weird, incoherent position, just to claim a difference. If the discussion involves an informed Catholic, it soon ends because the person realizes that they cannot claim the caricature of Catholicism, which is what they rely on to prove a huge gap. I find this very telling. Surely, if the differences were so huge, one should be able to show it without misrepresenting the other side!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’ve noticed a consistent trend here at CAF for many years. Sometimes, in a debate, you have someone straining to prove this ‘‘vast’’ ‘‘unbridgeable’’ differences, so they’re simply asked to clarify that position and where or how it differs from the Catholic position.

In fairness, that “straining” often comes from both sides more often than not, and what is typically exploited in the more polemically anti-Catholic exchanges is our own inability from the Catholic side to properly present the doctrinal or dogmatic positions of the Church. Recent threads, especially on the dogma of the Assumption, have shown this to be the case, where lack of a common Catholic understanding is painfully apparent. Ironically, a consistently proper explanation of dogmatic declarations, which are rather deliberately and intentionally bounded in scope themselves, could easily alleviate this tension over time.

Perhaps what you see is that heightened level of critical comment when it comes to dogmatic declarations that were made “unilaterally” by the Catholic Church, with the dogma of Papal Infallibility being the summit of that contention. General agreement, acknowledging difference in prespective, is evidenced in charitable exchange on other less contentious subjects quite consistently, here and elsewhere. It is only where a lack of understanding is evidenced that we subject ourselves to excessive criticism.

There is frequent mention of poor catechesis here on the CAF as well. As you may notice, a good percentage of the Orthodox posters here really “know their stuff”, and are quite well catechized on Orthodox thought and teaching. Not that we do not have some well catechized Catholic contributors here as well, but proportionately, they seem to have us beat. Something to ponder …

 

[jwinch2]

That said, practically speaking and as being once again demonstrated at present, as the Russian Orthodox Church goes, so will the effort to reunite.

So then the question becomes what is the status of the relations between the Russian Orthodox and the Catholic Church? To my understanding, this has not been going as well as with some of the other Orthodox.

The second question becomes with the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian government (which has been both widely reported and speculated on), and the claims that that government exerts some level of control over the Church in Russia, how is that going to influence any potential movement towards reunion? To me, this adds another massive layer of complexity except now we are talking geopolitical problems instead of theological ones. The political problems are less likely, in my view, to be solved by good will and both sides seeking common ground, than the theological ones are. There have been some recent signs that the Church may be breaking away to some extent, but I hardly follow the situation closely enough to make any sort of stronger statement in that regard.

 

[Marybeloved]

In fairness, that “straining” often comes from both sides more often than not, and what is typically exploited in the more polemically anti-Catholic exchanges is our own inability from the Catholic side to properly present the doctrinal or dogmatic positions of the Church. Recent threads, especially on the dogma of the Assumption, have shown this to be the case, where lack of a common Catholic understanding is painfully apparent. Ironically, a consistently proper explanation of dogmatic declarations, which are rather deliberately and intentionally bounded in scope themselves, could easily alleviate this tension over time.

Perhaps what you see is that heightened level of critical comment when it comes to dogmatic declarations that were made “unilaterally” by the Catholic Church, with the dogma of Papal Infallibility being the summit of that contention. General agreement, acknowledging difference in prespective, is evidenced in charitable exchange on other less contentious subjects quite consistently, here and elsewhere. It is only where a lack of understanding is evidenced that we subject ourselves to excessive criticism.

There is frequent mention of poor catechesis here on the CAF as well. As you may notice, a good percentage of the Orthodox posters here really “know their stuff”, and are quite well catechized on Orthodox thought and teaching. Not that we do not have some well catechized Catholic contributors here as well, but proportionately, they seem to have us beat. Something to ponder …

Yes, bad (or entirely absent) catechesis is a big problem in post VII Catholicism. Though I can’t be entirely sure that the well-educated (in religion) Orthodox at CAF are necessarily representative of the general Orthodox population in the world. Almost all the ones I know of are converts, who generally tend to thoroughly investigate their way into either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I know very few such Catholics who are cradles, and never fell away- I imagine the situation is much the same in the world of Orthodoxy. I’ve read some comments on Orthodox forums that suggests that, like us, they are not all that way. But being Eastern, you probably know more about the Orthodox than I do. Plus I know a few Catholics (non-Latin) who I find truly formiddable in virtually all the debates I’ve read- no exaggeration, truly.

 

[Nine_Two]

In fairness, that “straining” often comes from both sides more often than not, and what is typically exploited in the more polemically anti-Catholic exchanges is our own inability from the Catholic side to properly present the doctrinal or dogmatic positions of the Church. Recent threads, especially on the dogma of the Assumption, have shown this to be the case, where lack of a common Catholic understanding is painfully apparent. Ironically, a consistently proper explanation of dogmatic declarations, which are rather deliberately and intentionally bounded in scope themselves, could easily alleviate this tension over time.

Perhaps what you see is that heightened level of critical comment when it comes to dogmatic declarations that were made “unilaterally” by the Catholic Church, with the dogma of Papal Infallibility being the summit of that contention. General agreement, acknowledging difference in prespective, is evidenced in charitable exchange on other less contentious subjects quite consistently, here and elsewhere. It is only where a lack of understanding is evidenced that we subject ourselves to excessive criticism.

There is frequent mention of poor catechesis here on the CAF as well. As you may notice, a good percentage of the Orthodox posters here really “know their stuff”, and are quite well catechized on Orthodox thought and teaching. Not that we do not have some well catechized Catholic contributors here as well, but proportionately, they seem to have us beat. Something to ponder …

An issue I’ve noticed with Catholics I know personally (devout all), which I’ve also noticed signs of on this forum, is a certain refusal to touch theological issues. They don’t want to debate them, and they don’t want to learn about them, instead they go with a “the Pope knows” mentality. So when they hear there is no theological difference between Orthodox and Catholics, they accept it at face value and assume it is just the intransigence of the Orthodox that prevents anything from happening.

I think Marybeloved has a point that most Orthodox posters here are converts so we have investigated this stuff, and therefore there is a tendency to be more knowledgeable, although my experience is that even cradles who take their faith seriously tend to be knowledgeable as well, but I also attend a parish where more than half the people work in the Education Industry, so that might not be a good example.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Did it not? I think you are looking at the unity from a shallow perspective. You look at it as, “hey, there’s no schism. Then everything else must be great.” But every Orthodox historian has pointed out that whether 1054 or the time of St. Photius the Great, it has already been an uneasy relationship between the East and West. In fact, the canons of the Council of Trullo has emphasized on differentiating the praxis of the East as opposed to the praxis of the West. Schism was not formalized but it doesn’t mean either side was happy with how the other side was developing into…

For RCC, I think this is a reasonable article on the Council: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

I also think understanding the Canons of the Apostles is useful in understanding the more basic differences: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_the_Apostles