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

[phil19034]

It isn’t heresy.
The Orthodox don’t necessarily even disagree with it. There has been dialogue.
Both sides make valid arguments.
It comes down to that the east believes that an ecumenical Council is the only one who can alter the creed and that was not the case. The west did because the Arian heresy laster longer in areas such as Spain. The east didn’t need to confront it. Historically that is the only reason it was added in the west.

???

I think are are misunderstanding

Here is a great article on the Filioque

What was Rome thinking when it added the Filioque?

 

[ziapueblo]

Has anyone here read the Chieti Document? It was written by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. I know, I know, people will say it’s not a magisterial document (even though the Catholic delegation is headed by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, who is the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer, and the statement is vetted by the Pope and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) but it is what will spring board dialogue when it comes to second millennium topics.

ZP

 

[mdgspencer]

.
Only God can do this, men on their own will not do it.
.
One thing that prevents it is recriminations against each other. This has to do with original sin. In the face of this, I think that it is prayer most of all that could do this.

 

[Justin_Kolodziej]

because of Florence

In any case I read the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by Photios and was deceived. Spoiler alert: Rome is correct after all.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

A miracle.

 

[Asinner]

So in this video, is the Orthodox bishop accepting a man already considered a priest into full communion with Orthodoxy, or is he also conferring holy orders on someone he does not consider to be a priest in the first place? Because there was also another quote from an earlier poster that seemed to suggest the Orthodox don’t consider Catholic orders to be valid:

and ordain all priests that would want to join

Either way, this has been enlightening to me, as it seems the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church is worse than I naively imagined.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

That’s a subjective statement.
Not to mention the official name of the Orthodox is the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Thus they would say the same thing about us.

Something that bothered me in Trent Horns book, Why We’re Catholic, was this certain section in chapter 11 that says who founded your church? almost to like undermine them. Which I could understand, and sure this book is good for beginner Catholics but the statement about the Eastern Orthodox is erroneous and a very shallow and misinformed view of the realities of why the schism came to happen.

Who Started Your Church?
• Calvary Chapel, 1965: Chuck Smith
• Mormon church, 1830: Joseph Smith
• Disciples of Christ, 1809: Thomas Campbell
• Baptist church, 1609: John Smyth
• Presbyterian church, 1560: John Knox
• Calvinist church, 1536: John Calvin
• Lutheran church, 1517: Martin Luther
• Eastern Orthodox church, 1054: Eastern Patriarchs
• Catholic Church, 33: Jesus Christ

I was disappointed in Horn for making it seem like in 1054 the patriarchs themselves just formed their own church. It wasn’t like that and was far more complicated than that. Not to mention 1054 is the traditional date but it was coming a long time before that and probably didn’t end officially in schism until 1204.

 

[tafan2]

Papal primacy would not be a problem, authority is the issue. Along with papal infallibility.

 

[SeraficLeo]

For the Latin tradition suppressing the Filioque would be tantamount to denying the Trinity. The Filioque is perfectly fine:

Revelation 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

And this from EWTN on the Holy Spirit:

The Holy Spirit, River of Grace
St. Ambrose of Milan
So, then, the Holy Spirit is the River, and the abundant River, which according to the Hebrews flowed from Jesus in the lands, as we have received it prophesied by the mouth of Isaiah.[3] This is the great River which flows always and never fails. And not only a river, but also one of copious stream and overflowing greatness, as also David said: “The stream of the river makes glad the city of God.”[4]

 

[Ridgerunner]

Papal primacy would not be a problem, authority is the issue. Along with papal infallibility.

And territoriality, which is a very big thing with the Orthodox.

And validity of sacraments in the Catholic Church, including whether Catholic baptism is valid (most Orthodox are noncommittal about that) and Catholic marriages (generally not accepted) and Catholic Holy Orders (Not accepted). To get anywhere with reunification, the Orthodox would have to at least acknowledge that the Pope represents the Church of Rome as a sort of Patriarchy like theirs. Right now, they don’t acknowledge that the Pope has any authority at all.

And which councils are to be accepted and which are not. Even the different Orthodox Churches disagree among themselves about that.

 

[steve-b]

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?

Factors

1. The Orthodox aren’t one. 60% + of Orthodoxy, (the Russians) are not in union with Constantinople / Istanbul and the other Orthodox churches in union with Istanbul…
2. The Orthodox are each individual autocephalous churches. They are all independent. There is no Orthodox Church. It’s Orthodox Churches. No ONE speaks for all of them. They all make their own decisions. Which is why they haven’t been able to have a “PAN” (everybody together) Orthodox council for over 900 yrs.

Looking at this from the Catholic Church perspective, it’s a tough job. Back in 2002 Card Kasper, then head of dialogue in this area said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from https://zenit.org/articles/the-crisi...rdinal-kasper/

Somewhat prophetic considering 14 years after he said that the Russians went into schism from the other Orthodox churches.

The issues always seem to be over authority

 

[Thomasbradley312]

The Orthodox aren’t one. 60% + of Orthodoxy, (the Russians) are not in union with Constantinople / Istanbul and the other Orthodox churches in union with Istanbul…

I thought it was Constantinople they call it still.

 

[steph03]

so would it make more sense for the Catholic Church to discuss with Orthodoxes churches individualy? Could we achieve (just an example) full communion with the Albanian Orthodox church while continuing to talk to the other churches?

 

[babochka]

How the Orthodox treat converts from Catholicism varies widely. Some will be re-baptize. Others will receive Catholics by chrismation and still others will receive Catholics by a profession of faith. Catholic priests have been received by vesting and some have been baptized, chrismated, and ordained. Rebaptism is common at the parish level even if the bishop has given specific instructions that Catholics should not be re-baptized. The practice is really all over the place.

Bear in mind, though, that the same thing happens within the Catholic Church, even though the position of the Church is very clear on the reception of converts from Orthodoxy. Sometimes this is done out of ignorance and sometimes it is done willfully, but it happens regularly.

Also, in the past, the Catholic church has not always been so clear about how to handle converts from Orthodoxy.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Yah but anyone who acts like the east were the bad ones and the west was righteous is ridiculous.
First of all the patriarch of Constantinople was pissed the bishop of Rome forced all Greek churches to convert to western customs. Thus the patriarch did the same in Constantinople.
Then the whole excommunication of 1054 resulted in it.
And the sac of Constantinople by the fourth crusade in 1204 was probably one of the most embarrassing things the Latin rite has ever done. If you were Orthodox would you really want to be part of that church that historically just stomps you in the face when you’re down?

 

[Isaac14]

The Orthodox are each individual autocephalous churches. They are all independent. There is no Orthodox Church. It’s Orthodox Churches. No ONE speaks for all of them. They all make their own decisions. Which is why they haven’t been able to have a “PAN” (everybody together) Orthodox council for over 900 yrs.

My goodness Steve. Do you not remember a few days ago in another thread where I pointed out a number of pan-orthodox synods in the timeframe you claim there have been no such things? You claimed I didn’t cite a source, then you pulled up a wiki article that made my point. I appreciate your zeal for the Catholic Church, but it would be a lot easier for me to take you seriously if you actually made an effort to understand the viewpoints of others.

Look, i understand we can split hairs on those synods, that not every single church was at each one, but that doesn’t change the fact that those synods were accepted by ALL the Orthodox Churches. As I have repeatedly told you, while the Orthodox Churches are independent in territory, they are remarkably united in faith.

 

[Isaac14]

For those interested in the topic of relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, I would suggest spending some time reading the documents produced by both the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

In particular, the Chieti Statement is worth reading. Although this, and the many other statements produced by these consultations are not binding, they do represent the earnest work of our theologians and bishops in laying the foundation on which future restoration of communion can be built. May their work be fruitful and something we can all pray for!

 

[dochawk]

I was curious which factors keep us from reunification today?

“reunification” is categorically not possible, as there was never union.

There was communion, which could be restored.

Don’t Orthodox allow birth control now?

No.

Just plain, “no.”

The Orthodox do not “allow” birth control or divorce any more than the RCC “allows” sin.

The Orthodox do make allowances for the benefit of an individual’s salvation under Okonomia in ways that the western church doesn’t.

But there is no possibility of an ecumenical council including Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and precisely because Eastern Orthodoxy is “sedevacantist” in the sense that it holds there is no present bishop of Rome.

You’ve just put words in their mouths that vow, if any, Orthodox would ever utter . . .

*choke* *sputter*

I’m Catholic, but that’s asinine and contradicts the teaching of the last few Popes.

The equivalent statements that the bishop of Rome has left communion with the universal church . . .

 

[babochka]

Here is an article, from an Orthodox perspective, regarding reception of converts in general. It also details the history and different approaches taken by different schools of thought in Orthodoxy. According to the article, the official current practice of all Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States, is to receive baptized and confirmed Catholics by Confession and Profession of Faith.

https://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

From the Catholic side -on the USCCB website, we find this joint statement: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te.../orthodox/baptism-and-sacramental-economy.cfm

From the fifth-century writings of St. Augustine on the Donatist Schism, the Latin tradition has been able to draw on a clearly articulated rationale for recognizing the validity, though not necessarily the fruitfulness, of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church. This does not mean, however, that the rebaptism of Orthodox has never occurred in the Catholic Church; it appears, in fact, to have occurred rather frequently in the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then. Nevertheless, rebaptism continued to be practiced on the eastern frontiers of Catholic Europe in Poland and the Balkans - contrary to Roman policy - well into the seventeenth century. In addition, the practice of “conditional baptism,” a pastoral option officially intended for cases of genuine doubt about the validity of a person’s earlier baptism, was also widely - and erroneously - used in the reception of “dissident” Eastern Christians up to the era of Vatican II itself, and afterwards was practiced occasionally in parts of Eastern Europe.

I guess the position of Rome seems to have been consistent, but the actual practice on the ground in the Catholic Church has not been. The centralized authority model and modern communication methods are both developments which have greatly improved consistency of practice.

I can tell you from personal knowledge that the practice of conditional baptism of Orthodox converts did not definitively cease with Vatican II. I know a woman, cradle Orthodox, who was conditionally baptized by an FSSP priest about 10 years ago.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Whenever laws become more important than the greatest commandments, things will go wrong. Laws separate people. The greatest commandments unites people through love, forgiveness and compassion.