J
jas84173
Guest
Would both sides have to make certain concessions? What are the issues which separate the Latin west and Greek east most difficult for reunification?
What would need to be compromised for a Catholic - Orthodox reconciliation?
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It is all going to depend on who is doing the talking.
People on both sides will say that it’s impossible. There’s too much difference.
Others on both sides will say that we could do it tomorrow if the leaders would just sit down in the same room and say “it is done.” Whatever differences we have are insignificant.
Lots of people also fall somewhere in the middle.
People on both sides will say that it’s impossible. There’s too much difference.
Others on both sides will say that we could do it tomorrow if the leaders would just sit down in the same room and say “it is done.” Whatever differences we have are insignificant.
Lots of people also fall somewhere in the middle.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The pope declaring his holy office as authoritatively inferior to ecumenical council would probably do it.
Last edited:
J
jas84173
Guest
Well even before the schism the bishop of Rome was the "first among equals ", which following the schism the bishop of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the title.
Maybe a system where the Bishop of Rome is the highest rank yet the Patriarchs of the other autonomous regions could be the next highest in authority? I’m sure that’s how it worked before the schism in some sense.
Maybe a system where the Bishop of Rome is the highest rank yet the Patriarchs of the other autonomous regions could be the next highest in authority? I’m sure that’s how it worked before the schism in some sense.
Last edited:
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
I would agree with Vonsalza. The Roman Pontiff would have to NOT be first or supreme. There would need to be a consortium of sorts.
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
The problem is is that both sides see themselves as the one true Church, the bride of Christ, that is guided by the Holy Spirit towards infallibility concerning doctrine. To make any concession would be admitting that neither of our Churches was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that neither of our Churches were the one true Church. (And what would suddenly make us true if we gave into the concessions?) You see it’s easy for Protestant denominations to unite and make concessions because their whole existence is based off of proper interpretation of the Bible, and if they need to, they could just reinterpret the scriptures and make compromises. Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Church works that way. Both Churches view themselves as THE Church founded by Jesus Christ under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, neither side is willing to make compromises.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
He could continue to be Primus. But his universal jurisdiction would have to be amended to “of last resort” and the greatest authority in Christendom would be a full ecumenical council.
The greatest mortal MAN would continue to be the Bishop of Rome, as Primus Inter Pares. But he’d exercise no direct authority over other bishoprics unless petitioned.
I’m sure in a reunification, he’d continue his “supremacy” over the Roman Catholic Church.
If this came to pass, then reunification would almost certainly come (probably after the death of the current Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow - the two men with the most to lose on the Orthodox side.
Aren’t musings fun!
The greatest mortal MAN would continue to be the Bishop of Rome, as Primus Inter Pares. But he’d exercise no direct authority over other bishoprics unless petitioned.
I’m sure in a reunification, he’d continue his “supremacy” over the Roman Catholic Church.
If this came to pass, then reunification would almost certainly come (probably after the death of the current Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow - the two men with the most to lose on the Orthodox side.
Aren’t musings fun!
Last edited:
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
Language barriers are a huge deal. The East has a very transcendental approach to the Faith, and their organic development has followed a different but parallel path to ours. We often believe we disagree, but we actually agree. We are just using the wrong languages to express the same concepts. It will take time for reconciliation to take place.
There are also many socio-political factors that keep us divided. Ancient cultural divisions have caused deep wounds. In the West, we are more immanent and legalistic. We think we can fix things with the stroke of a pen or by bowing to the Holy Father. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy.
There are also many, many members of the laity, both Catholic and Orthodox, who do not want a reunification. They think and even call the others schismatics, heretics, unfaithful, and so forth. And since the Catholic Church is bigger and has been subject to a fair degree of scandals, the Orthodox fundamentalists have a lot of mud to throw, although the Catholic fundamentalists also have their fair share of mud accumulated and ready to go.
There are also many socio-political factors that keep us divided. Ancient cultural divisions have caused deep wounds. In the West, we are more immanent and legalistic. We think we can fix things with the stroke of a pen or by bowing to the Holy Father. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy.
There are also many, many members of the laity, both Catholic and Orthodox, who do not want a reunification. They think and even call the others schismatics, heretics, unfaithful, and so forth. And since the Catholic Church is bigger and has been subject to a fair degree of scandals, the Orthodox fundamentalists have a lot of mud to throw, although the Catholic fundamentalists also have their fair share of mud accumulated and ready to go.
A
AlNg
Guest
Please see the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Amen.
The unity of marriage is centred on love, and love can overcome many things. After thirty two years of marriage, I have come to understand we can live together with a lot of differences.
A
AdherentToRome
Guest
I think unification would hinge on the death of the Pope that lets the Orthodox church back to the table in a postmortem manner. In other words readmit them when said Pope dies and allow their equivalent of Cardinals and Patriarchs into the election process. This may be enough of a chance to get that even footing the Orthodox church needs before entering back in. Since 2/3 decision is required maybe this could be a later/final stage solution after flushing out differing theology.
J
jas84173
Guest
That is true.
However neither side has ever said “They are a false Church”. We are just in schism because of certain doctrines. However I know the Catholic Church at least still views Orthodox priests as valid successors of the Apostles.
I think it is safe to say that both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches ARE the true Churches. They were one for the first millenium. Unfortunate events lead to the schism in 1054, but the state of the schism is nothing at all like Protestantism. It wasn’t like one side just started preaching heretical doctrines. It was just a slow drift. Language was different, the culture of East and West were different, and communication wasn’t always as good as it could have been. There was a lackof understanding on both sides.
I think it is fine to be a Catholic and believe your Church is the true faith yet believe Orthodox are the same true Church, just separated in schism.
However neither side has ever said “They are a false Church”. We are just in schism because of certain doctrines. However I know the Catholic Church at least still views Orthodox priests as valid successors of the Apostles.
I think it is safe to say that both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches ARE the true Churches. They were one for the first millenium. Unfortunate events lead to the schism in 1054, but the state of the schism is nothing at all like Protestantism. It wasn’t like one side just started preaching heretical doctrines. It was just a slow drift. Language was different, the culture of East and West were different, and communication wasn’t always as good as it could have been. There was a lackof understanding on both sides.
I think it is fine to be a Catholic and believe your Church is the true faith yet believe Orthodox are the same true Church, just separated in schism.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Here’s how Fortescue suggested reunion:
There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Fundamentally, there would have to be a continuation of the Catholic doctrine that communion with the Roman bishop is necessary for full communion with the church, as he is its chief pastor and successor to the Apostle Peter.
How this primacy is exercised can be tweaked, of course, but what must be maintained is what Cyprian of Carthage said back in the 3rd century, that there is one chair of Peter centered at Rome, from which the church’s unity proceeds. And we must be in agreement with Irenaeus of Lyons from the 2nd century, that all churches must look to and be in agreement with church of Rome and its bishop.
Otherwise, from the Catholic perspective, most of the theology is fundamentally the same. My personal experience is that Orthodox tend to think Catholics are way off the mark, even in differences of theological or sacramental approach, while Catholic thinkers tend to be more receptive of a diversity of thought with regard to how liturgy and theology can be done. Just my experience.
After all, look at those Eastern churches that have come into full communion with the Catholic Church. Under the best circumstances, they have kept their liturgical, legal, and theological traditions – even equivalent to their Orthodox counterparts – all the while accepting the primacy and supremacy of the bishop of Rome, as successor the the Apostle Peter.
How this primacy is exercised can be tweaked, of course, but what must be maintained is what Cyprian of Carthage said back in the 3rd century, that there is one chair of Peter centered at Rome, from which the church’s unity proceeds. And we must be in agreement with Irenaeus of Lyons from the 2nd century, that all churches must look to and be in agreement with church of Rome and its bishop.
Otherwise, from the Catholic perspective, most of the theology is fundamentally the same. My personal experience is that Orthodox tend to think Catholics are way off the mark, even in differences of theological or sacramental approach, while Catholic thinkers tend to be more receptive of a diversity of thought with regard to how liturgy and theology can be done. Just my experience.
After all, look at those Eastern churches that have come into full communion with the Catholic Church. Under the best circumstances, they have kept their liturgical, legal, and theological traditions – even equivalent to their Orthodox counterparts – all the while accepting the primacy and supremacy of the bishop of Rome, as successor the the Apostle Peter.
Last edited:
J
jas84173
Guest
Yes. Well, I did a lot of studies on this in college and although the Eastern churches always viewed the Bishop of Rome as the " first among equals “, it shows a reverance which I believe turned to Constantinople following the schism because it was known as " New Rome”. The early church was led by the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. All of these cities had huge impacts in early Christianity. I’ve heard some question why just because Peter was martyrd in Rome that means it’s the seat of the Church, especially when Peter spent much longer in Antioch.
However the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox Churches historically did revere the seat of the Bishop of Rome as an authority. It comes down to “how much authority” which was always a disagreement somewhat.
However the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox Churches historically did revere the seat of the Bishop of Rome as an authority. It comes down to “how much authority” which was always a disagreement somewhat.
2
2towers
Guest
That and nullifying Vatican I and II, and maybe a few more councils.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Nullifying Vatican 1 is essentially what that declaration would do.
I was an orthodox catechumen for a while, so I messed around with my fair share of members of their team. When V2 critique came up, it was usually as a late accessory to an already well-developed anti-papacy rant.
And maybe this is some of the orthodox residue that still hasn’t washed off me, but I’m not sure the dogmatic declaration of infallibility was the best idea - even if true. I think it was largely a knee-jerk reaction to the loss of the temporal power of the papacy.
Last edited:
2
2towers
Guest
Yes absolutely and I think they would cherry pick through a few more councils before they were satisfied. Somewhere online there is a graph summary that is pretty good on the major decisions, and reiterations of all the councils. It would be interesting to see if you could pick all their objections out or not. We are way past the Filioque issue.
Last edited:
J
jas84173
Guest
Since the schism how many council’s has the Catholic Church had? I know Catholics recognize 21 council’s. But how many do Orthodox regard? Have Orthodox had council’s similar to Catholics since the schism? I know there was the synod of Jerusalem in the late 17th century but not all Orthodox recognize it. That’s the one area of Orthodoxy that is different. Sure Catholics have different Bishops and Cardinals etc but in the end the Vatican makes the rules. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t have that same hierarchy . The Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow definitely have the most authority in Eastern Orthodoxy however their authority is more of respect. The Patriarchs of every autonomous region usually countries can make the rules and seldom do the Patriarch of Constantinople say anything. It’s why Eastern Orthodox biblical Canons are so fluid. Most regard 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras( 3 Esdras in Latin Vulgate appendix) , Prayer of Mannaseh, Psalm 151 as scripture. Slavonic Bibles ( Russian Orthodox) have 2 Esdras ( 4 Esdras in Latin Vulgate appendix) in their Bibles as 3 Esdras, and the Greek Bible has 4 Maccabees in an appendix. I don’t believe Orthodox have the same view of scripture as Catholics or Protestants of course. It seems less of an issue. I wonder if that too would be an issue in reconciliation. Would Orthodox have to abandon these extra books Catholics don’t recognize as Canon or would the Church allow them to continue with their fluid interpretation.
In their favor, Orthodox do have every book Catholics define as scripture in their Canon. I think they have more because they use all of the books which were in the Greek Septuagint. I could be wrong but that’s always been my belief. And 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh do have a history in the Latin rite. They were in ancient manuscripts of the Vulgate but were not in the end defined as as scripture and put in an appendix to the Vulgate following the Council of Trent.
In their favor, Orthodox do have every book Catholics define as scripture in their Canon. I think they have more because they use all of the books which were in the Greek Septuagint. I could be wrong but that’s always been my belief. And 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh do have a history in the Latin rite. They were in ancient manuscripts of the Vulgate but were not in the end defined as as scripture and put in an appendix to the Vulgate following the Council of Trent.
- Status