Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[josephdaniel29]

I think this is referring to remarriage after the death of the spouse, not remarriage after divorce. One of the things that I have problems with in the Eastern Church’s attitude to this issue is the failure to distinguish between widowhood and divorce.

Edwin

But the Canons of St Basil are completely unambiguous.

 

[brb3]

The two Traditions represent two archetypal and universal forces. Their separation keeps the world in existence; their union means the dissolution of the cosmos.

This is nonsense. And I think you said it in jest.

I’m reading the full history of the schism, about half way thru the entire story. It is tragic that our forebears couldn’t come together and make peace. The West has the stronger argument and position … IMO. Clearly Western tradition was built upon Peter & Paul … and that becomes the foundation for the Universal Church.

Which Church has the Popes and holds the chair of Peter ? If it were the East … we should listen/join to them. But, such is not the case.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think this is referring to remarriage after the death of the spouse, not remarriage after divorce. One of the things that I have problems with in the Eastern Church’s attitude to this issue is the failure to distinguish between widowhood and divorce.

Edwin
[/INDENT]

I’m curious as to what leads you to that reading of it?

edit: I can’t find anything that says the Cathari/Novatians made any distinction.

 

[Nine_Two]

Why can’t the East admit their forebears were wrong to leave the Church and now take the lead in righting a tragic schism. With 20/20 hindsight, we today see the West was right on the filioque … and correctly used scripture to point up the value of amending the Creed, to combat the heretics of that day.

I’m sorry, how do we see this today? You mean by the fact that Catholics all seem to disagree on how to interpret the filioque, and that some are led astray into the heresy of believing the Holy Spirit originates with both the Father and the Son?

 

[brb3]

Some or all of the Orthodox Churches permit three marriages, two divorces – and contraception (including the abortifacient Pill?), which was not allowed for centuries.

If this be true … then the East tolerates severe error. Even Protestants know this to be against scripture.

 

[Nine_Two]

If this be true … then the East tolerates severe error. Even Protestants know this to be against scripture.

“If this is true…” I’m pretty sure this is how misrepresentations of us begin on this forum… someone says something that is wrong, and one half believing repeats it and becomes a source for others.

 

[brb3]

I must also say that if we merged our churches it wouldn’t be a RE-unification, it would be a certain type of unification for the first time ever.OR]

Truer than most understand. From around the time of Arianism, 4th Century, … the East became increasingly difficult to deal with, rejecting the authority of the West to make the final calls.

 

[brb3]

“If this is true…” I’m pretty sure this is how misrepresentations of us begin on this forum… someone says something that is wrong, and one half believing repeats it and becomes a source for others.

Are you suggesting a “lie gets half-way round the world before the truth gets it’s shoes on”…

 

[Nine_Two]

Are you suggesting a “lie gets half-way round the world before the truth gets it’s shoes on”…

No, I’m saying humanity as a race has a tendency to accept as fact what they want to hear, rather than bothering to check the truth of the matter before they repeat it.

I do note that I’m not accusing you of doing this - you haven’t repeated anything - but you didn’t seem overly critical either.

 

[Hesychios]

Why can’t the East admit their forebears were wrong to leave the Church

You are wrong half out of the gate.

The Western church started the schism and you should be aware of that, since it has been posted on enough.

There wasn’t even a sitting Pope at the time, and a few Cardinals hi-jacked the church, plunging us into schism.

… and now take the lead in righting a tragic schism.

We take the lead through admonishment and with prayer. We are hoping you and your fellow western Catholics correct your church’s errors and come home, which is why we still will talk with you .

 

[Hiskid1973]

If the CC is correct that the Orthodox walked away why did the majority of the see’s stay together… If the CC was correct why the even worse splintering with Protestantism…Why didn’t Protestantism come from the Orthodox side ?.Seems to me just applying logic that correction was brought to an erring church that went unheeded and we see the results …Thank God in spite of the flesh, the gospel is still reaching the unsaved and the kingdom of God grows daily…

 

[Hesychios]

Truer than most understand. From around the time of Arianism, 4th Century, … the East became increasingly difficult to deal with, rejecting the authority of the West to make the final calls.

It was never a matter of “the west”. The See at Rome was respected and Orthodox. More than enough reason to ask it to arbitrate.

What is it about this authority that we don’t have right now?

We always have a primate to adjudicate for us if we need that. Now as then it was always a matter of mutual respect between the parties and respect for the facilitator.

What we did not have, ever, was the See at Rome naming bishops for us, or regulating our liturgies, or canonizing our saints, or declaring our dogmas. Those things we have always done either within our own synods or gathered in council. We don’t need a Pope for that.

If we did need a Pope, there would have been a lot of scrambling around after the schism making new canons to deal with a changed situation. Check the historic record, there was nothing like that. It isn’t like the Orthodox were at a loss about what had to be done and how to do it without a Pope. There weren’t even any discussions.

There was no crises, because the Pope literally did nothing. In the east it was business as usual. Most Orthodox probably didn’t even really understand the implications of the schism until the crusades, when foreign armies were marching across the land and arresting or expelling the Orthodox bishops.

 

[JDZwiers19]

If the CC is correct that the Orthodox walked away why did the majority of the see’s stay together… If the CC was correct why the even worse splintering with Protestantism…Why didn’t Protestantism come from the Orthodox side ?.Seems to me just applying logic that correction was brought to an erring church that went unheeded and we see the results …Thank God in spite of the flesh, the gospel is still reaching the unsaved and the kingdom of God grows daily…

Every major schism resulted from the rejection of papal authority. Seems to me that by applying logic one can see that rejecting true authority leads to tragedy.

 

[Nine_Two]

Every major schism resulted from the rejection of papal authority. Seems to me that by applying logic one can see that rejecting true authority leads to tragedy.

This is the first time I’ve heard the Protestant Reformation used as proof that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Please expand, I’m going to go get popcorn.

 

[brb3]

Catholics all seem to disagree on how to interpret the filioque, and that some are led astray into the heresy of believing the Holy Spirit originates with both the Father and the Son?

St. Augustine taught it was essential to maintain the equality of the Father, Son, and H.S. … saying the Son participated in the Spirit’s ‘proceeding’ from the Father. As pointed out in Scripture / John 20:22 ]. Thus, the H.S. proceeds from BOTH Father & Son. The Filioque theme expressed the unity of the Trinity.

Augustine conceded that the Father ALONE is the originating source of BOTH the Son and the H.S. So, when the Western Church originated the Filioque clause… it was based and EXPLAINED to the East … with these correct understandings.

Nevertheless, the East could not bring themselves to accept the Western rationale.

 

[Nine_Two]

St. Augustine taught it was essential to maintain the equality of the Father, Son, and H.S. … saying the Son participated in the Spirit’s ‘proceeding’ from the Father. As pointed out in Scripture / John 20:22 ]. Thus, the H.S. proceeds from BOTH Father & Son. The Filioque theme expressed the unity of the Trinity.

Augustine conceded that the Father ALONE is the originating source of BOTH the Son and the H.S. So, when the Western Church originated the Filioque clause… it was based and EXPLAINED to the East … with these correct understandings.

Nevertheless, the East could not bring themselves to accept the Western rationale.

How does the filioque maintain equality within the trinity?

 

[brb3]

No, I’m saying humanity as a race has a tendency to accept as fact what they want to hear, rather than bothering to check the truth of the matter before they repeat it.

I do note that I’m not accusing you of doing this - you haven’t repeated anything - but you didn’t seem overly critical either.

It did seem too incredible to be factual. Thus, I called the accusation to be supported by others, IF IT BE TRUE.

 

[brb3]

There wasn’t even a sitting Pope at the time, and a few Cardinals hi-jacked the church, plunging us into schism.

As you know this didn’t happen overnight … as you might seem to suggest above. It took several decades to fester and finally get to the point that centuries later, with additional divergences, matters couldn’t be tolerated by the West — and the East broke ranks.

 

[Contarini]

It was never a matter of “the west”. The See at Rome was respected and Orthodox. More than enough reason to ask it to arbitrate.

What is it about this authority that we don’t have right now?

We always have a primate to adjudicate for us if we need that. Now as then it was always a matter of mutual respect between the parties and respect for the facilitator.

What we did not have, ever, was the See at Rome naming bishops for us, or regulating our liturgies, or canonizing our saints, or declaring our dogmas. Those things we have always done either within our own synods or gathered in council. We don’t need a Pope for that.

If we did need a Pope, there would have been a lot of scrambling around after the schism making new canons to deal with a changed situation. Check the historic record, there was nothing like that. It isn’t like the Orthodox were at a loss about what had to be done and how to do it without a Pope. There weren’t even any discussions.

There was no crises, because the Pope literally did nothing. In the east it was business as usual. Most Orthodox probably didn’t even really understand the implications of the schism until the crusades, when foreign armies were marching across the land and arresting or expelling the Orthodox bishops.

The flaw in your argument is that the schism happened in slow motion, with East and West gradually moving away from each other. After the end of the seventh century, Rome was not part of the Empire and thus had much less direct involvement with the Byzantine Church, but there was still a long process of estrangement. If you were to leap from 600 to 1100, you would notice a difference in Rome’s role in the Eastern Church. But that doesn’t mean that there was a huge difference between 1054 and 1055.

Edwin

 

[brb3]

Most Orthodox probably didn’t even really understand the implications of the schism until the crusades, when foreign armies were marching across the land and arresting or expelling the Orthodox bishops.

You seem a fairminded spokesperson for the Orthodoxy …

Propose for us a means to resolve our differences … if you were Pope for a day.