What would it take for the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox to reunify?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomasbradley312

Guest
I was curious which factors keep us from reunification today?
I have heard the Orthodox retain valid Apostolic succession, what is it in today’s world which keeps us separated?
 
Last edited:
Oh man, one could write (and some have written) volumes. Papal jurisdiction, scholasticism, ancient grudges and prejudices, political barriers…
 
How big of a deal would it be to get rid of the filioque? Perhaps say that you can believe it if you wish, but it is not to be recited in any public prayer or liturgy? The mystery of the Trinity is ultimately unknowable, and Our Lord clearly says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

Other things:
  • Strictly limit papal primacy to the Western Church, and reserve for the Pope a primacy of honor coupled with legal jurisdiction over the West (canon law, liturgy, etc.) and ultimate resolution of any disputed theological matters.
  • Recognize purgatory, “toll houses”, and any other ways of expressing purification after death, as equally valid ways of referring to what is, in essence, a great mystery.
  • Not sure what to do about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Both have been defined as dogma. There is no real contradiction, though, between the Assumption and the Dormition.
  • Ekonomia with regard to second and third marriages after divorce is also a bit tricky.
 
The Holy Spirit going full throttle… and everyone having a little more charity and a little less politics.
 
Last edited:
The single biggest issue is that of papal authority. The Orthodox stridently reject the idea that the pope has any greater authority or power than any of the other patriarchs. The problem is that papal infallibility flies completely in the face of that and was defined dogmatically by a council. So either the Orthodox would have to change their tune on that despite it being a centerpiece of their doctrine for about a thousand years, or the Catholic Church would have to walk back papal infallibility–which requires admission of error in a supposedly infallible ecumenical council. Somewhat ironically, the admission of such would perhaps bridge the gap with the Orthodox, but would instantly cause a schism within the Catholic Church by those who hold to the previous councils.

I feel the First Vatican Council probably closed the door more or less permanently to possible reunification.
 
That’s something I thought.
Also the Papal Infallibility which was recognized somewhat but in a different way in the early Church. They always viewed the seat of Rome( and new new Rome, Constantinople as the symbolic first of the bishops, but that is all it really is in their view) I think that also may be a huge problem for them especially when it wasn’t defined until centuries after the schism.
Of course it would be a huge Council. Probably the largest ever. And there would be some heated debates I’m sure.
As for filoque, I don’t think anyone but the Latin rite is bound to say it. I’m not sure if even eastern Catholics say it. When Pope St. John Paul ll said the Creed in Greek with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, he didn’t use fiolque.
As for trivial things that don’t really matter I don’t think the Church would care much and would allow them to have a lot of independence still.
Say for example the Orthodox generally have a few more books in their Bibles than Catholics, they have a less formal view of Canon and just use the traditional Septuagint that was passed down them. I’m sure they would still be allowed to include like 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras in their Bibles for example seeing as the Church never condemned the books and some they accept like 1 Esdras( though the numbering is different in other traditions including the Vulgate) and the Prayer of Manasseh have been included in the appendix of the Vulgate in much of Church history.
The problem I think for both sides is dogmatic teaching, like the Assumption etc. I don’t think the Orthodox have had many Councils since the schism. I know they accept the Council of Trullo which was before the schism but the Pope rejected as binding, and also a Synod of Jerusalem in the late 17th century. Not sure of others.
The problem is the Church couldn’t have much way of leeway in teaching. It isn’t like the Church could undogmatize a dogma because that would be admitting they were wrong which is impossible. The Orthodox aren’t into formal absolutism like the west( which really didn’t take hold in the west until the Protestants forced the Church to formalize everything. It could be difficult to change that.
 
Last edited:
Mtatum1958 said:
How big of a deal would it be to get rid of the filioque ?
Click to expand...
I just know that filioque has distressed the Orthodox to no end, whereas in the West, it is not seen as that major of an issue. We do not deny any truth of the faith when we recite the Creed sine filioque, and it has solid biblical backing, as I noted above. Also, the filioque was not part of the Creed until the sixth century.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think they are very rigid about it not even because there is a valid justification for it, which both sides from what I’ve read make scriptural arguments for their belief on it.
The problem for Orthodox is it is the Creed and they believe nothing should change it except and ecumenical Council. The only reason it was added historically was because Arianism persisted longer in the west, especially in Spain and Portugal regions and it was added without a Council.
Personally I sort of get why that would upset them. The Creed was established at Nicaea and further at Constantinople in the fourth century.
 
And there in lies part of the difficulty. @steph03 point is on the mark.
 
Add to that a large dose of humility, two big ears to listen with and one small mouth to speak with.
 
MasterHaster said:
40.png
JSRG:
or the Catholic Church would have to walk back papal infallibility–which requires admission of error in a supposedly infallible ecumenical council
Click to expand...
I think you have that exactly correct. For me papal infallibility was a bad decision.
Click to expand...
more humility and openess is needed. Backtracking on truth is not.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
It isn’t like the Church could undogmatize a dogma because that would be admitting they were wrong which is impossible.
Click to expand...
This is why the only reunification is for people in the RCC to join the Holy Orthodox Church. Catholics don’t expect Protestants to reunify, because they have strayed from the faith and want them to give up those errors, likewise the Orthodox Church expects the same for RCs. It sounds hard, but it could happen overnight if true lovers of Christ all became Orthodox, because the Orthodox Church will bend itself to make sure that the reception would be as easy as possible. I’m sure Bishops could visit and do mass Chrismations and ordain all priests that would want to join and allow things to continue similarly as before. There is even a western rite that I’m sure would be allowed if that is what the Bishop and new priests agree upon. This kind of thing did happen already with some Eastern rite Catholics from what I understand. All that is required is humility and an effort to adjust our minds to the Ancient Church, and not try to make the Ancient Church adjust to current trends. I think Traditional Catholics would love being Orthodox and would be so beneficial to Christ’s Body! Forgive me for any offense.
 
Last edited:
pacloc said:
This is why the only reunification is for people in the RCC to join the Holy Orthodox Church. Catholics don’t expect Protestants to reunify, because they have strayed from the faith and want them to give up those errors, likewise the Orthodox Church expects the same for RCs. It sounds hard, but it could happen overnight if true lovers of Christ all became Orthodox, because the Orthodox Church will bend itself to make sure that the reception would be as easy as possible. I’m sure Bishops could visit and do mass Chrismations and ordain all priests that would want to join and allow things to continue similarly as before. There is even a western rite that I’m sure would be allowed if that is what the Bishop and new priests agree upon. This kind of thing did happen already with some Eastern rite Catholics from what I understand. All that is required is humility and an effort to adjust our minds to the Ancient Church, and not try to make the Ancient Church adjust to current trends. I think Traditional Catholics would love being Orthodox and would be so beneficial to Christ’s Body! Forgive me for any offense.
Click to expand...
Would there be any role whatsoever for the papacy in such a scenario? Final arbiter of disputed doctrinal matters, where all else has failed? Primacy of honor? Supreme jurisdiction over the Western Church? Any or all of these?
 
  1. Prayer.
  2. Humility.
  3. A re-kindled desire for unity.
  4. Heartfelt interchange.
  5. Forgiveness for past sins on both sides.
  6. Time for pondering and for wounds to heal.
 
Last edited:
Are you asking if the Pope converted too? I don’t think that would happen. I am sure there would be plenty of people, priests, and bishops of the RCC that would not convert, so there would always be a RCC, but hopefully it would be very evident that the Orthodox Church is the ancient Faith, and that those that choose to stay in the RCC do so for reasons of their own that would be tied to some form of innovation or error. The Other Orthodox Patriarchs I am sure would work with the city of Rome and eventually restore a “Pope” there when the time comes, but I doubt that he would ever be given primacy simply because of the history that has happened. So I would tend to say that none of those things you mention would happen.
 
JSRG said:
The problem is that papal infallibility flies completely in the face of that and was defined dogmatically by a council.
Click to expand...
Infallibility as defined by Vatican I is reversible according to the book by Father Luis Bermejo, S.J. : Infallibility on trial. This book is written with the Imprimi potest (imprimatur) of the Jesuit provincial of India.
HomeschoolDad said:
Other things:
Click to expand...
These are all good suggestions. Of course, there are a few other sticking points. See for example, a letter to Pope Francis:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
 
pacloc said:
This is why the only reunification is for people in the RCC to join the Holy Orthodox Church… it could happen overnight if true lovers of Christ all became Orthodox, because the Orthodox Church will bend itself to make sure that the reception would be as easy as possible. I’m sure Bishops could visit and do mass Chrismations and ordain all priests that would want to join and allow things to continue similarly as before. There is even a western rite that I’m sure would be allowed if that is what the Bishop and new priests agree upon. This kind of thing did happen already with some Eastern rite Catholics from what I understand. All that is required is humility and an effort to adjust our minds to the Ancient Church, and not try to make the Ancient Church adjust to current trends.
Click to expand...
Yes, this would be one way to obtain unity, especially if the Catholic Pope would also convert to the Orthodox church. But each side is not budging from its position. When Catholics say they want unity, is it true that they want the Orthodox to renounce all their teachings which differ from the Roman Catholic teachings or can they continue to deny the filioque and papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
How big of a deal would it be to get rid of the filioque ?
Click to expand...
The Filioque doesn’t exist in Greek. The filioque is needed in Latin but would be heresy in Greek because of the translation issue.

The Creed was written in Greek. When you translate it into Latin, there isn’t a direct translation that works. Without the Filioque in Latin it would imply that the Holy Spirit only comes from God the Father only. This is because the meaning of words in the two languages do not line up.

So the Filioque issue has been beaten to a dead horse. It’s not the reason for separation.

The reason for the schism is because today’s Eastern Orthodox deny the role of the Pope.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
As for filoque , I don’t think anyone but the Latin rite is bound to say it
Click to expand...
FYI - this isn’t totally true either because when the Roman Mass is celebrated in Greek, the Filioque is not used, because use of the filioque is heresy in the Greek language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top