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

[Genesis315]

(Note, the following is from the perspective of someone convinced the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but I think the reasoning is the same if the perspective is reversed.)

The problem with corporate reunion is the uniqueness of each human person. Corporate reunion would require each and every EO person to be properly disposed to the grace of unity and be sent it at the same time. Yet, as we see in the Gospels–especially the parable of the sower–not all received the grace of God the same way. Likewise–especially in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard–we see that God does not send the same grace to everyone at the same time. He also warns of the inevitability of schisms and heresies.

Experience also bears this out as different people enter the Church in different years and at different points in their own lives while others leave or remain separated. The history at attempts at reunion also demonstrates this point.

It is certainly good to pray and take other measures to try and effect corporate reunion, but it seems to me the unity of the baptized will always be a struggle as different individuals maintain and enter into unity, while others break or remain apart from unity. The reconciliation of individuals of good will seems to me where the most fruitful building up of unity will occur (I’d be overjoyed to be surprised by a corporate reunion of course).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

How big of a deal would it be to get rid of the filioque ?

As big as getting rid of anything inside the Creed. Filioque is not “you can believe it if you want” kind of thing, it’s plain true. I get that not including it in the Creed might be an answer but problem would be that many traditional Catholics would feel offended by it, Tridentine Mass would still mandate it and so on. Filioque is not mandated outside Latin Church anymore anyway, yet some Eastern Catholics decided to keep it.

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.

Perhaps, but how to draw a line between revealed truth of Papal Infallibility and limiting the Pope? Even so, nowadays most Orthodox want us to clarify how and when would Pope be able to intervene in the East. Why deprive East of gift Church received in form of Papal Authority though? Obedience is key virtue of Christian life, and Papacy kinda teaches us that too. There were too many Councils inspired by Holy Spirit about Papacy to just throw it away because Orthodox don’t like that. Church did not throw away it’s teaching on marriage when Henry VIII wanted to leave, despite fact it would keep England Catholic- so why sacrifice truth now?

• 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.

That doesn’t seem like something Catholic Church has not done yet. Problem with Assumption is just that Pope declared it himself unilaterally.

Ekonomia with regard to second and third marriages after divorce is also a bit tricky.

Right. It would kinda violate our theology.

Our Lord clearly says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

There are many about Spirit of the Son too.

 

[dochawk]

That is a hard-core RCC position, not a universal position. It assumes away the entire issue.

I am aware that there is a schism. I don’t accept your definition (nor do recent popes). I do deny the authority and right of the hierarchs to be in schism.

He is not suggesting that the Orthodox Churches were not part of the one Church. He’s saying that they have never been part of a single, seamless organization; they were, in the past, separate Churches bound together into the one Catholic Church by communion.

Yeah, that

Although we Orthodox like to proclaim the seat of honor/first among equals but as if the primatial bishop means nothing beyond a regular bishop, that’s not really true either.

But then, you’d hardly be Eastern Christians if holding two conflicting positions at the same time really bothered you, now would you? :crazy_face: [I probably just annoyed some silly Latins who expect us to choose a single answer to yes or no questions . . .]

. . .I believe that restoration of communion between our churches that is “built” on either “orthodox, submit yourselves to the Pope” or “Catholics, repent of your papist heresies” is built on sand and will not succeed.

I suspect that the end comes when the people have had enough, and simply start crossing the lines between churches. More likely than not, this starts with the Orthodox faithful.

hawk

 

[Isaac14]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[dochawk]

Yes, and it consists of the RCC, the EC, the EO, and the OO.

That depends upon how you define “jurisdiction.” Look at the writings of Cardinal Ratzxinger, aka Pope Benedict, on that.

Not even the EO and OO dispute that; this is a straw man. The question is what primacy means.

 

[steph03]

I hate this division between Peter and Andrew… Aren’t they supposed to be brothers? so sad

 

[steph03]

I agree with Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis… The church needs to breath using both lungs.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

I’m honestly just not understanding why Councils in the 19th and 20th centuries have any basis for argument here. Are we to assume that the western Church is capable of making full decisions about the ancient Church without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the east? Maybe for the west they are but these Councils aren’t accepted by the east so it really isn’t even proper to use them for citations.
It is a strange thing that the Popes and Councils are calling anathema to anyone who says it’s seat of honor only or that the Pope is just saying himself that he has no responsibility at all in the separation. That’s not at all historically accurate. It is somewhat comical. It’s like someone being guilty of something and buying himself out of it and then telling his subjects they cannot question his innocence and if they do they are banned.
All of these arguments are actually making me more disappointed honestly.

 

[ziapueblo]

Rome itself acknowledged that, to be ecumenical, any general council has to involve representatives of the other Churches, AND BE RECEIVED BY THEM (Second Council of Nicaea). Therefore, by Rome’s own canons, there has not been a true Ecumenical Council since 787. Indeed, Rome did not even begin calling its own general councils “ecumenical” until Robert Bellarmine began doing so, for anti-Reformation polemical purposes, in the 16th century.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m a cafeteria Catholic?

The schism–which is within, not from the one true Church–revolves around just ONE substantive issue, which is the nature, definition, and exercise of the primacy held by the Church of Rome.

ZP

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Didn’t both sides excommunicate each other?
Didn’t the west ravage Constantinople in 1204 and set up a Latin rite there for 80 years that angered people so much that 250 years later the emperor said he would rather be at mercy to the Ottomans than be under the rule of the pope?
Just saying, anyone is naive who says the west was some perfect righteous Church who never erred. All the Orthodox ever really believed was exactly what the early Councils said. Denying filioque isnt denying anything the early Church taught. Nor is denying papal infallibility. In fact that belief would have been unknown. Yes they believed the chair of Peter was the final authority but to think the bishop of Rome was somehow incapable of making errors on certain things, that is actually quite a stretch. I see Church Fathers saying to submit to the bishop and Rome telling the Corinthians to submit to his authority ( such as 1 Clement), but I have never found any Church father who even comes close to making a claim that the bishop of Rome is infallible.
It’s a mutual schism. There is no breaking off as if one side chose to or one side was less at fault than another. This isn’t a situation like the Protestant Revolution.

 

[Neithan]

The pope could make an infallible declaration that the pope can no longer make infallible declarations. Problem solved

Seriously, I think infallibility is an important dogma. Perhaps the pope could re-define it so that it’s shared with Constantinople.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

The development of doctrine didnt end with the Church Fathers, though.

I view this mostly as explained by Christ in the parable of the prodigal son. Christ is the father. Rome is the elder son who stayed, while the schismatic groups took their birthright with them.

If only they knew the feast that was waiting for them once they come Home. But the elder son was disappointed, saying the father never killed the fatted calf for him.

But the father replied that everything he has is the elder son’s, but the prodigal son has returned and it is time to rejoice.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

That was some wonderful feast in Constantinople in 1204. Yah they sure are missing out I bet.

 

[Vico]

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?

Everything declared dogma since the council of 869 – the Eighth Ecumenical Council – would need to be agreed upon. If the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East would also be included it would go back farther.

 

[Dovekin]

At the Second Vatican Council, a joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration from Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras was read that acknowledged errore “on both sides” at the time when schism occurred. I would think this statement has a greater authority than the Syllabus of Errors from a century earlier, with those who reject Paul VI’s being the cafeteriaa Catholics.

Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

 

[steve-b]

I just find this profoundly ad hoc. The Church existed and was one before any ecumenical council occurred. Constantinople and Jerusalem had to be positively elevated to higher status:

True.

And since this is talking about Church authority

Already, In 180 a.d. , Irenaeus, from Smyrna, in the East, (in Today Turkey), became bishop of Lyon in the West (present day France) argued forcefully against the Gnostics, of his day, a heresy who among other issues, argued against the universal authority (preeminent authority) of NOT ROME, but the Church of Rome and just to make the point specific, Irenaeus also names 12 bishops by name in succession, from Peter, of the Church of Rome, down to his day just in case one has ANY doubts who he is talking about. And where did Irenaeus say this authority and succession of these bishops and understanding came from? He said Peter AND Paul at Rome that came down to his day by faithful bishops HERE paragraphs 1-3

That was NOT new knowledge, he was passing on, it is Tradition, AND he was writing this 145 yrs before the council of Nicaea.

SeraficLeo:

the ecumenical councils caused that; before that, the only principal Sees were Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all of which had their significance by reference to Saint Peter. Trying to use Ecumenical Councils as a launching point for ecclesiology ends up begging the same question as using the Bible as the sole foundation for Christianity: who or what determined what books originally belonged in the bible in the first place? The bishops at Nicea didn’t spontaneously come out of nowhere and neither did the major Sees: they already belonged to a communion that obviously also already had principles of unity and government that could not possibly pressuppose an ecumenical council.

AND​

Irenaeus who was originally from the East, who knew Polycarp, both from the same city (Smyrna). Polycarp was a direct disciple of St John the Apostle. Polycarp would have taught Irenaeus what he knew and wrote about in his writings “Against Heresies”.

IOW it’s already known East and West, the Church of Rome had preeminent authority.

 

[Dovekin]

Declarations of a Pope to a sitting Council are more authoritative than a papal list of errors annexed to an encyclical.

Generally, more recent documents should be assumed to incorporate earlier teaching and so would have more weight. Even where there is a seeming contradiction, as in this case, the later document was prepared with full knowledge of the earlier, while the earlier obviously had no knowlege of the later.

 

[Isaac14]

I think trying to use ecumenical councils as a basis for ecclesiology is absurd for the simple fact that ecumenical councils presuppose the Church. It can’t even in principle be a basis for the actual organization and constitution of the Church in the first millenium of the Church as the first ecumenical council happened 250+ years after Pentecost.

@SeraficLeo, I’d really like to come back to this as I’m not sure what I had said that implied Ecumenical Councils define ecclesiology. I’d like to figure out what I am misunderstanding about what you’ve said.

I had stated the East has never accepted that approval by the Pope was the determinative factor in assessing the ecumenicity of a council. The Chieti Statement by the Joint Catholic/Orthodox commission seems to agree with this.

Please help me understand as I fear we’re making two different un-related points.

 

[Isaac14]

If what you say is true

why did 60%+ of the Orthodox (the Russians) not only boycott the 2016 council meeting, they now or claim to be , no longer in union with Constantinople now Istanbul, and everyone in union with them?

Russia has only broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate due to the situation in Ukraine. Russian has not broken communion with “everyone in union with them.” If they had done this, Russian would be out of communion with all of Orthodoxy as no one else has broken communion with the EP.