S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Honestly I don’t see why liturgy would necessarily have to be altered in a reunion with Rome.
What would it take for the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox to reunify?
- Status
B
babochka
Guest
You choose the best of the best and compare it against the worst of the worst? Hardly a fair comparison.HopkinsReb:
This is why there will not be any reunion soon. Catholics are demanding that the Orthodox bend to Roman Catholicism. I don’t see many Orthodox who want to bend their teachings and their liturgy to fit the tastes of Roman Catholics. Take a look at some of the Roman liturgical celebrations we have recently seen and compare that with the Orthodox liturgy.
I
Isaac14
Guest
Agreed. This sort of comparison isn’t fair and certainly doesn’t work to foster a desire for unity.
A
AlNg
Guest
The question is how can there possibly be reunion when Roman Catholics demand that the Orthodox bend their beliefs, their customs and their liturgy to the tastes of the Roman Catholics?
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
This is true.
I think historically there are two ways of looking at this.
There were schismatic groups who claimed to be the Church at the first Council, such as the Arians, the Montanists, and Gnostics etc. They were the ones condemned. Many groups blended a bunch of pertaining beliefs in the area. Zoroastrianism and even Buddhism were somewhat influential in thought in some of these groups.
However there were other popular movements, who even though they used a lot of Judeo Christian history, and even teachings, would not be regarded as schismatic but as a separate religion all together. I think the best example of this at the time would be Manichaeism who Ausgustine actually converted from. Their views weren’t schismatic but completely a different faith, much more on par with the difference between modern day Christianity and Islam.
I think historically there are two ways of looking at this.
There were schismatic groups who claimed to be the Church at the first Council, such as the Arians, the Montanists, and Gnostics etc. They were the ones condemned. Many groups blended a bunch of pertaining beliefs in the area. Zoroastrianism and even Buddhism were somewhat influential in thought in some of these groups.
However there were other popular movements, who even though they used a lot of Judeo Christian history, and even teachings, would not be regarded as schismatic but as a separate religion all together. I think the best example of this at the time would be Manichaeism who Ausgustine actually converted from. Their views weren’t schismatic but completely a different faith, much more on par with the difference between modern day Christianity and Islam.
Last edited:
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
I do it all the time. But until one realizes the cause of the Church’s authority, of course obedience makes no sense.
A
AlNg
Guest
The question was: Is there any possibility of reunion if Roman Catholics demand that the Orthodox bend all their teachings to the Roman Catholic POV?
D
dochawk
Guest
I don’t think that’s a generally fair or accurate statement.
Some Catholics, including many CAF posters, are making such a demand.
That demand has not been made by any of the recent Popes.
There is a minority of the RCC that demands that. There are groups in the Orthodox world with similar positions.
Left to actual church leadership, the only blocking issue at the moment is the demand of the Russian Orthodox that their leader be recognized as first, and they will block anything that doesn’t elevate their patriarch over Rome and Constantinople.
If the ROC were to vanish for some bizarre reason, Rome and Constantinople would have things worked out in short order . . .
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
Because the Roman Catholics demanding the Orthodox bend their beliefs don’t determine anything.
A
AlNg
Guest
That is what is disturbing and will not facilitate any efforts toward reconciliation.
B
babochka
Guest
As an Eastern Catholic, I completely disagree that this is presently the case in the Catholic Church.babochka:
The question is how can there possibly be reunion when Roman Catholics demand that the Orthodox bend their beliefs, their customs and their liturgy to the tastes of the Roman Catholics?
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
Curious, how do you believe the Holy Spirit is working in the Church now?
Is it through ecumenical councils in the east? Without (name removed by moderator)ut from the west? Is it through ecumenical councils in the west without (name removed by moderator)ut from the east?
Do you think the Holy Spirit is waiting until we figure it out & come back together?
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Are you honestly saying the Popes would allow some sort of “reunion” wherein our seperated eastern Orthodox brethren could publicly teach from the pulpit as Catholic dogma that the Roman Church and Pontiffs do not have a primacy? Or that the Pope cannot give dogmatic and binding definitions on faith and morals?
Please give one magisterial source that suggests such an outlandish “Catholic Church” is possible.
Please give one magisterial source that suggests such an outlandish “Catholic Church” is possible.
D
dochawk
Guest
What the. . . . .???
While there is a small clique among the orthodox that denies Roman primacy, they’re a tiny minority (about as tiny as the RCC nuts who insist that all Orthodox are doomed to damnation). The question is what that primacy means, not whether it exists (or would exist again after communion was reestablished.)
refining the teachings of VI in a way that the Orthodox would accept it would be straightforward. Note that the doctrine requires he act as part of the college of bishops; refining that would not be hard.
You could start with CCC 838 (I mean for the real issues, not the straw men you raised).
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Yeah “what the” indeed are you talking about? The Pope’s authority is not subject to the bishops, he can always exercise it “unhindered” (see par. 882 of the CCC, copied below).
Okay so I guess you are arguing we could delete the entirety of that last sentence? What else should we alter to cater to people’s tastes? Obviously you think we should risk a schism with hardline Roman Catholics by claiming the primacy given to Saint Peter directly, personally and immediately by Christ Himself should be altered. How would you recommend we keep those in communion who might break away by rewriting the Church’s divine constitution to make the Vicar of Christ’s authority dependent on certain bishops (and which ones and why, by the way)?
A
AlNg
Guest
Here’s what you said:
" If one does not agree to these Catholic teachings, then one cannot be a Catholic…"
Please read the book by Father Bermejo: Infallibility on Trial.
" If one does not agree to these Catholic teachings, then one cannot be a Catholic…"
Please read the book by Father Bermejo: Infallibility on Trial.
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
You speak a lot about obedience.
Where is the fine line boundary between disobedience( which does not constitute schism) and heresy which does?
I actually get this from a lot of SSPX sympathizers, that Archbishop Lefebvre may have done an act of disobedience but not a schismatic act.
Since the excommunications were only binding on the Patriarch and the delegate sent by the Pope in 1054, in reality that didn’t constitute a complete breach which is why most historians don’t regard the 1054 excommunications the true schism but it was more of a long complicated process that spanned many centuries and political and theological differences, which you can’t really put the blame on one date. 1204 is the date which there was clearly no more communion at all, and a few councils trying to restore communion failed.
In fact I believe Pope Leo lX died before the delegation even arrived at Constantinople so in some ways the entire meeting was no longer valid in some ways.
Where is the fine line boundary between disobedience( which does not constitute schism) and heresy which does?
I actually get this from a lot of SSPX sympathizers, that Archbishop Lefebvre may have done an act of disobedience but not a schismatic act.
Since the excommunications were only binding on the Patriarch and the delegate sent by the Pope in 1054, in reality that didn’t constitute a complete breach which is why most historians don’t regard the 1054 excommunications the true schism but it was more of a long complicated process that spanned many centuries and political and theological differences, which you can’t really put the blame on one date. 1204 is the date which there was clearly no more communion at all, and a few councils trying to restore communion failed.
In fact I believe Pope Leo lX died before the delegation even arrived at Constantinople so in some ways the entire meeting was no longer valid in some ways.
D
dochawk
Guest
You’re splicing what I said.
There is no dispute about the existence of primacy; the Orthodox do not deny the primacy, but hold to the first millennium usage.
Once again: the Orthodox do not dispute the primacy of the Roman see, but rather the authority it has come to claim during the schism.
You seem to have mixed that with my noting that VI expressed ex cathedra as acting as the president of the college of bishops.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism: the Greek churches in southern Italy were forced either to close or to conform to Latin practices. In retaliation, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate sent by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople for purposes that included refusing to Cerularius the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” and insisting that he recognize the Pope’s claim to be the head of all the churches. The main purpose of the papal legation was to seek help from the Byzantine Emperor in view of the Norman conquest of southern Italy and to deal with recent attacks by Leo of Ohrid against the use of unleavened bread and other Western customs, attacks that had the support of Cerularius. Historian Axel Bayer says the legation was sent in response to two letters, one from the Emperor seeking assistance in arranging a common military campaign by the eastern and western empires against the Normans, and the other from Cerularius. On the refusal of Cerularius to accept the demand, the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, O.S.B., excommunicated him, and in return Cerularius excommunicated Humbert and the other legates. This was only the first act in a centuries-long process that eventually became a complete schism.
The validity of the Western legates’ act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died and Cerularius’ excommunication applied only to the legates personally. Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side sometimes accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division. The Latin led Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the West’s retaliation in the Sacking of Thessalonica in 1185, the capture and pillaging of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult. Establishing Latin hierarchies in the Crusader states meant that there were two rival claimants to each of the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, making the existence of schism clear. Several attempts at reconciliation did not bear fruit. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054, although this nullification of measures taken against a few individuals was essentially a goodwill gesture and did not constitute any sort of reunion. Contacts between the two sides continue: every year a delegation from each joins in the other’s celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and Saint Andrew (30 November) for Constantinople, and there have been a number of visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox.
The validity of the Western legates’ act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died and Cerularius’ excommunication applied only to the legates personally. Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side sometimes accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division. The Latin led Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the West’s retaliation in the Sacking of Thessalonica in 1185, the capture and pillaging of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult. Establishing Latin hierarchies in the Crusader states meant that there were two rival claimants to each of the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, making the existence of schism clear. Several attempts at reconciliation did not bear fruit. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of 1054, although this nullification of measures taken against a few individuals was essentially a goodwill gesture and did not constitute any sort of reunion. Contacts between the two sides continue: every year a delegation from each joins in the other’s celebration of its patronal feast, Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) for Rome and Saint Andrew (30 November) for Constantinople, and there have been a number of visits by the head of each to the other. The efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox.
Last edited:
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
They hold to their own interpretation of the first millenium usage, which is as dubious by its very nature as an ecclesiastical reconstruction by Protestant sects that invent whole new churches on their interpretation of some imagined pristine Apostolic church of the first century, for example. Why would anyone hedge their immortal soul on such a thing? Last I checked the separated EO Churches retained the written gospels that clearly attest to the primacy given to Saint Peter by Christ, granting to him both the keys to the kingdom and entrusting to his pastoral care the entirety of the Lord’s flock, without exception, which had long been received and accepted by the whole and universal Church before even any ecumenical council. We are not going to heal the separation by arbitrarily rewriting dogmas of the faith based on something as dubious as a one-time historical operating custom or procedure reconstructed from available evidence but always potentially subject to revision by further evidence.
- Status