Would you convert if EO and RCC were in full communion?

[dzheremi]

No, I wouldn’t. You guys (what would become the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) were already in union for about 600 years in the post-Chalcedonian environment, and that did not make us change our minds about the issues that originally led to the Chalcedonian schism. Occasionally a non-Chalcedonian Orthodox person will convert to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (or Catholicism), but not so much in the modern era now that there are not imperial pressures to do so (it generally happens in very Chalcedonian environments, e.g., Greece). I think there is a sense in which we would like to see EO and RC together, if only for the sake of ending at least one of the major schisms in world Christianity, but it has basically nothing to do with the Oriental Orthodox communion in particular, and would not budge me even a little bit. The issues surrounding the Great Schism of 1054 are completely different than the one that actually directly affects us.

 

[benjohnson]

Would I convert?

First off, bing in full communion with each other is quite a bit different than both the EO and RCC coming out of schism with one and another. That said, I would have to give serious consideration as to the nature of relationship between the RCC and the LCMS at that time.

If it would look like the RCC and LCMS would enter into full communion in my lifetime, I would very happily remain LCMS. Frankly, for myself and only myself, my family is already ‘communion’ with another RCC family - they’re the God parents (sponsors) of my third child, and my family has had a positive influence on their families Catholic faith.

Now if the EO and RCC came out of schism with each other, then I would have to assume that the RCC has defined recent dogma to be compatible with our Gospel teaching. If the LCMS didn’t bodily merge with the RCC and EO at that time, I would probably think we were just being stubborn and would explore further.

 

[chimo]

Right, but the problem you’re going to run into is deciding which one is infallible with respect to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Both make the claim and both can’t be right since they teach mutually exclusive truths.

Well on that I agree. I am sure those who would convert based on the RCC and EO coming together have their reasons. I must admit I don’t understand them though.

Both Churches are infallible because both Churches have different traits that make them who they are. I have discovered this in my own observations that the Catholic Church is more geared to Discipline (Justice) and the Orthodox Church to nurturing (Mercy). While both Churches do exhibit both traits of God (Justice and Mercy) it is the Catholic Church which leans more on the Justice or Discipline side and the Orthodox Church on the Mercy or Nurturer side. This discovery is actually good for it tells me our two Churches act in the same way as two people who are meant for each other in a marriage. The gifts of one person will enlarge the gifts of the other partner. It seems God made us different so that by coming together we will find fulfillment. Marriage for instance plays on that scenario. You need to find a man or woman who will complete you. From that perspective what you are lacking can be found in what the other person has and give to you when you become as one. This is the way God made East and West. He had to develop both Churches apart from each other so that their identities and characteristics would come forth. Once their maturities have arrived (which I believe is now) the possibilities of the two becoming one will be the next stage of their lives just like the beginning marriage of two people who were ordained for each other.

 

[mymamamary]

One’s investigation into church history and the Scriptures. Ultimately the same reason anyone affiliates with any given viewpoint.

Where is “Sola Scriptura” in the Bible?

 

[steido01]

In a word? Possibly. I would deeply consider it, but there are several key issues that would need to be addressed.

Firstly, justification. I’m not sure I could budge from the Lutheran understanding regarding justification; I just can’t bring myself to believe that I, a poor, miserable sinner, can somehow cooperate in my own salvation. Yes, I know recent years have seen Rome and some Lutherans working on documents like the JDDJ, but I’m not convinced that document really ‘solves’ anything - the Roman position is simply restated. Given the East’s general disinterest in defining justification the way Western churches have, I’m not sure the reunion of East and West would resolve the issue of justification for Confessional Lutherans like myself.

Secondly is the point of papal authority. Presumably, a reunion of East and West would require a truly ecumenical council (as has been discussed on other threads), and an agreement on papal authority. I can’t imagine Orthodoxy moving from it’s current position - “papacy as first among equals.” I could accept the Orthodox position. If Rome were to accept that position as well, I would very seriously have to ask myself whether the question of authority in the Church Catholic had been resolved, and the implications that would have on all other teachings - and what should we make of the councils held by each church since the schism?

Of course, questions like these would be asked by LCMS leaders who are much more knowledgeable than I am. I would certainly be seeking their guidance!

 

[AveChriste11]

Both Churches are infallible because both Churches have different traits that make them who they are. I have discovered this in my own observations that the Catholic Church is more geared to Discipline (Justice) and the Orthodox Church to nurturing (Mercy). While both Churches do exhibit both traits of God (Justice and Mercy) it is the Catholic Church which leans more on the Justice or Discipline side and the Orthodox Church on the Mercy or Nurturer side. This discovery is actually good for it tells me our two Churches act in the same way as two people who are meant for each other in a marriage. The gifts of one person will enlarge the gifts of the other partner. It seems God made us different so that by coming together we will find fulfillment. Marriage for instance plays on that scenario. You need to find a man or woman who will complete you. From that perspective what you are lacking can be found in what the other person has and give to you when you become as one. This is the way God made East and West. He had to develop both Churches apart from each other so that their identities and characteristics would come forth. Once their maturities have arrived (which I believe is now) the possibilities of the two becoming one will be the next stage of their lives just like the beginning marriage of two people who were ordained for each other.

I’m not sure what you mean about the RCC being more geared towards Discipline, and the Orthodox to nurturing. The Orthodox Church is quite disciplined in my opinion, monasticism is her lifeblood – and the guidelines for fasting are a lot stricter, and quite more frequent than they are in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[aemcpa]

It’s not converting to change rites within the Catholic Church. If an Orthodox Church, or several, returned to full communion with Rome, it would just add to the list of sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Yes. Looks like there would be room for me, too.

 

[chimo]

I’m not sure what you mean about the RCC being more geared towards Discipline, and the Orthodox to nurturing. The Orthodox Church is quite disciplined in my opinion, monasticism is her lifeblood – and the guidelines for fasting are a lot stricter, and quite more frequent than they are in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is just a simply way of expressing what both Churches have within their respective if you can call behaviours. Thanks for your inquiry but you still need me to help you understand what I mean. I am not referring to the “disciplines” of both Churches as you have stated but to what is contained in the manner by which each Church reveals itself. For instance the Western Church service is very orderly. You must know what to do before you come. I am referring now to the priest, altar servers and so on. Everything is precise and if you make a mistake everyone will notice it. Not so the Eastern Church. If you make a hundred mistakes nobody will notice it. It is of a different way of life that I am addressing that makes you who you are. The Justice or Discipline I am referring to is Rome’s ability to know more of God’s Justice than what the East would know. In the other attribute of God which is His Mercy it is more pronounced in the East. This attributes of God Justice and Mercy is what saves us. God saves us by using both His attributes of Justice and Mercy. While Rome understands God’s Justice better this is why she developed through her saints the understanding of Purgatory which is God’s Justice put into action. Rome is gifted in this knowledge of Justice. The East however is more gifted in revealing God’s Mercy. Her saints has helped the East to know more of how God exercises His Mercy. So a Catholic brought up more in the Catholic Church would have a tendency to be more disciplined through the Justice of God and an Orthodox more “nurtured” on the Mercy of God. This does not mean Justice and Mercy are not pronounced in both Churches. They are but with a more leaning to Justice in the West and more of a leaning to Mercy in the East. In this way of understanding this you can see that the West is more geared for the raising of adults and the East more towards children. Nurturing is better found in the East when you are young while the disciplined side is more noticeable growing up in the West. I never mentioned these attributes while you are now adults. I am referring to how each person grows up within their respective Churches. The orderly way of the Mass is reflective in how a person grows up in the Church of Rome while the “homely” way the Divine Liturgy is presented is reflected in how that person grows up as well. I guess what I am saying is how each person is psychologically made up while growing up within their own respective Churches.

 

[Aaron_Creagh]

Many Baptist believe Christ taught the Baptist theology so how can Christ teach the Baptist Theology as well as the Catholic Theology.

lol

Christ taught the doctrine of his Father in heaven.

 

[Trebor135]

Both Churches are infallible because both Churches have different traits that make them who they are.

How can papal infallibility be true and not true at the same time?!

 

[dzheremi]

It can’t be. Chimo is wrong.

 

[GKC]

In a word? Possibly. I would deeply consider it, but there are several key issues that would need to be addressed.

Firstly, justification. I’m not sure I could budge from the Lutheran understanding regarding justification; I just can’t bring myself to believe that I, a poor, miserable sinner, can somehow cooperate in my own salvation. Yes, I know recent years have seen Rome and some Lutherans working on documents like the JDDJ, but I’m not convinced that document really ‘solves’ anything - the Roman position is simply restated. Given the East’s general disinterest in defining justification the way Western churches have, I’m not sure the reunion of East and West would resolve the issue of justification for Confessional Lutherans like myself.

Secondly is the point of papal authority. Presumably, a reunion of East and West would require a truly ecumenical council (as has been discussed on other threads), and an agreement on papal authority. I can’t imagine Orthodoxy moving from it’s current position - “papacy as first among equals.” I could accept the Orthodox position. If Rome were to accept that position as well, I would very seriously have to ask myself whether the question of authority in the Church Catholic had been resolved, and the implications that would have on all other teachings - and what should we make of the councils held by each church since the schism?

Of course, questions like these would be asked by LCMS leaders who are much more knowledgeable than I am. I would certainly be seeking their guidance!

I know Anglicans who feel a good deal like what you express in your second point.

GKC

 

[steido01]

Oh, I almost forgot number three! Could we keep our Lutheran hymns and liturgies? Nothing beats the LSB’s Order of Matins when the pastor can hold a tune!

 

[chimo]

How can papal infallibility be true and not true at the same time?!

It depends on how you see it and define it. I am not saying on what is on the books that it can be accepted by the East but when you look at it at another way it can make sense.

 

[chimo]

It can’t be. Chimo is wrong.

I have been wrong before. The definition of Papal Infallibility can always be modified for it to be acceptable by the Eastern Church. I was just trying to evaluate it for it to be more acceptable for the East.

 

[sharpag]

If a merger between the EO and RCC does occur I think it will cause its own set of schisms. The approach to theology is so vastly different that the result will either look more Orthodox or more Catholic, and if the unified Church is a mixture of both you could expect to see numerous dissidents on both sides claiming orthodoxy (in the sense of doctrine) has been compromised.

As a Methodist considering EO and OO, if the EO and RC had some agreement of reunion I do not believe I could join that Church. Because either the RC or EO view has to prevail on issues like Papal Infallibility, the IC, etc. or they have to agree to disagree which seems disingenuous.

Reunion always sounds nice until we consider what it actually means.

 

[jmcrae]

Right, but the problem you’re going to run into is deciding which one is infallible with respect to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Both make the claim and both can’t be right since they teach mutually exclusive truths.

I don’t think the Orthodox make any claim to infallibility. They have no distinct leader to whom such a responsibility could fall.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh, I almost forgot number three! Could we keep our Lutheran hymns and liturgies? Nothing beats the LSB’s Order of Matins when the pastor can hold a tune!

Why not? We already sing half the Methodist hymnal, anyway.

 

[dzheremi]

I have been wrong before. The definition of Papal Infallibility can always be modified for it to be acceptable by the Eastern Church. I was just trying to evaluate it for it to be more acceptable for the East.

That’s not a good thing, though. It would be wrong to say that if Rome merely reformulates Papal Infallibility in a less obviously offensive manner, then we’re all on board. Besides, I don’t even think you’re right about that. In Lumen Gentium it is noted that definitions of the Pope are “themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable”. So let’s just say that the Pope comes out tomorrow and says “no more Papal Infallibility as we have known it; now it means X”…well, I would think that after the RC world is done having a collective heart attack, astute Orthodox (and other non-Catholics) would say “hmm…so he came out and changed his mind on this matter, and everyone simply has to deal with it, since he’s Pope and can proclaim that without having the Church’s consent. Why do we want to be in communion with a person claiming that kind of power, again?”

So I do not think it could be reformed in a way that would please the Eastern churches. I think it (and Lumen Gentium, in fact) would have to be completely scrapped. There’s no nice way to put “this guy can do whatever he wants*” to millions of people who have never thought that to be a part of Church governance.

*- I know that’s a gross oversimplification of RCC teaching regarding the Pope, but since the whole discussion is one big thought experiment anyway, we should see what these things could lead to in the hypothetical situation that Chimo has brought up, wherein the definition of Papal Infallibility can be changed to suit the audience. If the Pope can just change that so as to make the East more amenable to the RCC, then…well…that’s not actually a good sign.