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

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aemcpa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not think that would ever work. The EO churches just submitting to Rome would never have a chance amoung the Orthodox.
 
dzheremi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let us say you are right and the Pope decides to make changes that will reflect towards the Eastern Church’s claims. What will that do for the Roman Catholics? It will not do them any good and it might put many of the Catholics off. This cannot be the direction for which the Pope must take for it will only bring distrust and mistrust within his own Church. So there must be another way. It must befall on us the Easterners to bring about this unity. For Rome to admit that it was wrong will only make matters worse. May be it is the Holy Spirit which wants us to do something to fix this situation by which Rome has place us into. These are my brothers and sisters. I have the highest respect to Rome and to the Roman Catholics who belong to her. They are as part of us as we are for them. Since they are my brothers and sisters than it is up to brothers and sisters to help them achieve this union despite of all what happened in the past. What do I do but to forget the past. It is no longer part of what I feel for them. If I continue to think of the past I must forget about uniting with them. But I will not do that. If brothers of the same family cannot get along with one another than it is up to one of them to hand the other an olive branch. I believe we the Orthodox can give this olive branch to Rome. Despite of what happened in the past let us give this branch so that we can start to bring each other into each others arms once again. I do not believe the Popes today are as less knowledgeable on us as Popes were from the past. Contacts are making us realise there is more at stake here. People are beginning to know each other. It takes time for this to happen. It had not happen ever in the past. The beginning stages of our mutual admiration and discovery can begin now. How long do you think before most of us will gather enough knowledge of the other? In time we will know more. Time will give us the ability to rethink our past behaviors so that the dawn of a new light will appear in the horizon. We need to think of the better good and not only of ourselves. In time perhaps newer generations will not be thinking like we do. Instead of picking on each other we will be accepting of each other. Perhaps those who continue the debate, God has to wait for them to die so that the newer generations can fulfill God’s commitment to our eventual unity. I believe the Pope of Rome to have the first office of the Church yet in a more Pastoral authority than what he enjoys now. His Pastoral authority is necessary for the good of all the Church. We can work with that type of setup.
 
chimo said:
It must befall on us the Easterners to bring about this unity.
Click to expand...
Rome is welcome back any time it wishes to repudiate its errors and confess the Orthodox faith.
For Rome to admit that it was wrong will only make matters worse.
Click to expand...
No doubt in the short term it will be very difficult, but without making things more difficult than they need to be, I think there are some things which Rome will have to repudiate in order to be accepted by the Orthodox. We cannot be triumphalist about this, of course, but you will notice, I hope, the more positive relations as of late between both the RC and the EO and the RC and OO under Benedict and now Francis. This is because we want to encourage the serious path that both have taken in governing the Roman Church. Encouraging what is good and acting in brotherliness is the name of the game, but let us not forget that there are some things that cannot be compromised on, and some things that will need to be dealt with, not shied away from, if communion is to be reestablished.
I do not believe the Popes today are as less knowledgeable on us as Popes were from the past.
Click to expand...
I agree.
How long do you think before most of us will gather enough knowledge of the other?
Click to expand...
I do not know. What is “enough knowledge”…enough for what? And what is the point of gaining this knowledge?

I
nstead of picking on each other we will be accepting of each other.
Click to expand...
We already are accepting of one another as people. We do not accept uniquely Roman/Latin doctrines that are not in accordance with our faith, however.
Perhaps those who continue the debate, God has to wait for them to die so that the newer generations can fulfill God’s commitment to our eventual unity.
Click to expand...
This is kind of a weird thing to say. God doesn’t have to wait for anything. God is with us already. We have not budged in accepting heterodox doctrines because of the commitment that our fathers have to teaching correct doctrines, which are part of the faith that He brought to us. God-willing it will never die, even though we will.
I believe the Pope of Rome to have the first office of the Church yet in a more Pastoral authority than what he enjoys now.
Click to expand...
But do the Latins agree with this?
 
dzheremi said:
Rome is welcome back any time it wishes to repudiate its errors and confess the Orthodox faith.

No doubt in the short term it will be very difficult, but without making things more difficult than they need to be, I think there are some things which Rome will have to repudiate in order to be accepted by the Orthodox. We cannot be triumphalist about this, of course, but you will notice, I hope, the more positive relations as of late between both the RC and the EO and the RC and OO under Benedict and now Francis. This is because we want to encourage the serious path that both have taken in governing the Roman Church. Encouraging what is good and acting in brotherliness is the name of the game, but let us not forget that there are some things that cannot be compromised on, and some things that will need to be dealt with, not shied away from, if communion is to be reestablished.

I agree.

I do not know. What is “enough knowledge”…enough for what? And what is the point of gaining this knowledge?

I

We already are accepting of one another as people. We do not accept uniquely Roman/Latin doctrines that are not in accordance with our faith, however.

This is kind of a weird thing to say. God doesn’t have to wait for anything. God is with us already. We have not budged in accepting heterodox doctrines because of the commitment that our fathers have to teaching correct doctrines, which are part of the faith that He brought to us. God-willing it will never die, even though we will.

But do the Latins agree with this?
Click to expand...
I don’t questioned your thoughts. It just that the average Catholic does not really know us. When I said to receive more knowledge I am referring to what makes each Church unique. By discovering each other we can learn a bit about what the other believes and work with that when we are contacting each other. When I said that God needs to wait I am referring to His patience. It must bother Him that we will not understand who the other is. Whatever the Catholic is and whatever the Orthodox is, their own teachings and doctrines are very dear to them. It must concern God when we will not try to give to the other the respect due to their own upbringing. That is what I meant when I said God must have to wait for people to die. Not that people should die but that other people will take the time to understand the other so that contacts will no longer be a fear. You are right about the Orthodox Church. But the problem as I see it is more that the Catholic does not know us. I realise the Orthodox need not someone outside their Church to tell them how to govern. You are correct. We know how to govern ourselves for we have been doing this for the past 2000 years. With more time and knowledge our respective Churches may have their day when Catholics and Orthodox will come to better agreements that will further their relationship.
 
And what would this communion entail? If the Pope would not exert his claim to supremecy over the other patriarches but resided himself to mere primacy in the church, the pope could not by himself without the consensus of the church decree things for hte church, the fillioque not in the creed (though I wouldn’t mind it Catholics continued to believe in it) and the eastern churches were merged effectively, then yes I could be in communion with that church.

If on the other hand it meant the Pope exerted his claim to supremecy over the over churches and forced the Fillioque into all editions of the creed then no, I would not be in communion with such a church.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
One’s investigation into church history and the Scriptures. Ultimately the same reason anyone affiliates with any given viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Church history? What about it? What specific field of church history are you making reference to? As for the Scriptures? What certitude do you have your understanding of the Scriptures is correct? One of the many issues within non-Catholic circles.
 
dzheremi said:
Rome is welcome back any time it wishes to repudiate its errors and confess the Orthodox faith.

No doubt in the short term it will be very difficult, but without making things more difficult than they need to be, I think there are some things which Rome will have to repudiate in order to be accepted by the Orthodox. We cannot be triumphalist about this, of course, but you will notice, I hope, the more positive relations as of late between both the RC and the EO and the RC and OO under Benedict and now Francis. This is because we want to encourage the serious path that both have taken in governing the Roman Church. Encouraging what is good and acting in brotherliness is the name of the game, but let us not forget that there are some things that cannot be compromised on, and some things that will need to be dealt with, not shied away from, if communion is to be reestablished.

I agree.

I do not know. What is “enough knowledge”…enough for what? And what is the point of gaining this knowledge?

I

We already are accepting of one another as people. We do not accept uniquely Roman/Latin doctrines that are not in accordance with our faith, however.

This is kind of a weird thing to say. God doesn’t have to wait for anything. God is with us already. We have not budged in accepting heterodox doctrines because of the commitment that our fathers have to teaching correct doctrines, which are part of the faith that He brought to us. God-willing it will never die, even though we will.

But do the Latins agree with this?
Click to expand...
I begt your pardon? Repudiate its errors? And confess the Orthodox faith? What arrogance and ignorance all in the same breath!
 
Such is life. Things I disagree with are arrogant and ignorant, too. 🙂
 
Not necessarily, but it would certainly be a positive factor. I suspect what they would be able to agree on would still be much too conservative and traditionalist for me to accept.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
One’s investigation into church history and the Scriptures. Ultimately the same reason anyone affiliates with any given viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Well, upon further investigation, let’s investigate the differences of terminology between Christians of different communions. It is certain that such differences form today one of the greatest obstacles at issue. Since the time of the Reformation these differences, which existed even then, have steadily increased, and as long as people fail to realize that they attach different meanings to the same words they will go on talking at cross purposes.

In a certain sense, a common basis is also offered by the first three Creeds, which the reformed communities recognize as norms of belief, namely the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene, and the so-called Athanasian Creed, which summerizes the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ. We do not ignore the fact that, for example, the meritorious activity of Christ’s human nature is not admitted in Luther’s Christology, but yet the definitive Christology of Chalcedon is fundamentally acknowledged.

In addition, the doctrinal decisions of the first four Councils were recognized by the Reformers and taken as norms of belief. Luther, in his “Concerning Councils and Churches” (1539), was concerned to show how his principle of sola scriptura was consistent with his convinction that the decisions of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) were norms of belief. His argument was that these Councils simply upheld the teaching of Scripture. This is true enough, and it is also true that, for example, St. Athanasius himself asserted that the Nicene definitions were Scriptural; still the part played by the apostolic tradition in the formulations of these Councils must not be overlooked. It was in light of Tradition that the Fathers of the Councils interpreted Scripture. As is well known, the Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites appealed to Scripture and adduced a number of texts in their support. The Fathers of the Councils, for their part, to show that their decisions infallibly interpreted the true meaning of Scripture, appealed to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who preserved them from error as the authorized successors of the Apostles. Luther, however, in reducing the authority of Councils simply to a private judgment which each person must make on the scriptural quality of their decisions, not only disavowed the ancient Church’s idea of Councils, but also overlooked the part played by Tradition in the decisions of the first four of them.
 
If RC and EO were in communion, would I convert? Well, it would have to be asked - which side would bend doctrinally to the will of the other? Would the EO accept indulgences and the treasury of merits? Would RC reject papal infallibility? Would Marian dogmas be de-dogmatised, and relegated to the realm of private piety? These, and a huge number of other questions, lie in the way.
 
Nicea325 said:
Church history? What about it? What specific field of church history are you making reference to? As for the Scriptures? What certitude do you have your understanding of the Scriptures is correct? One of the many issues within non-Catholic circles.
Click to expand...
The problem with Roman Catholics is that they profess deference to the Church and attack everyone else for their ‘personal’ interpretations, missing the irony that what constitutes ‘the Church’ is itself a contested concept. I agree that we ought to defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, but what do we mean when we say ‘the Catholic Church’? One has to do a little investigation before one can discern what that is.
 
Indifferently said:
The problem with Roman Catholics is that they profess deference to the Church and attack everyone else for their ‘personal’ interpretations, missing the irony that what constitutes ‘the Church’ is itself a contested concept. I agree that we ought to defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, but what do we mean when we say ‘the Catholic Church’? One has to do a little investigation before one can discern what that is.
Click to expand...
Well, if you care to, investigate this.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663a.htm No irony here.

BTW - The only people who contest the concept of what constitutes the Church are the one who do not defer to the authority of the Catholic Church.
 
Indifferently said:
The problem with Roman Catholics is that they profess deference to the Church and attack everyone else for their ‘personal’ interpretations, missing the irony that what constitutes ‘the Church’ is itself a contested concept. I agree that we ought to defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, but what do we mean when we say ‘the Catholic Church’? One has to do a little investigation before one can discern what that is.
Click to expand...
Sorry,but I disagree 100%. Church is not a contested concept all;however, it is in the non-Catholic world. The problem is that over time non-Catholics have given and have defined “church” according to their own discernments. Scripture is clear and so is early church history. I do not recall reading any church father exclaiming “church” is a contested concept or an irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top