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

[GaryTaylor]

With due respect, the article is terrible. (Sorry, Peter.) It’s clearly written by an Antiochian who doesn’t have to live in Antioch.

Martyrdom is already happening on a huge scale in the Middle East and parts of Africa (e.g., northern Nigeria), and it has not brought the Orthodox and Roman Catholics any closer to union. In fact, I would think a more honest assessment of the situation is that what intercommunion you do see on the ground in response to pastoral difficulties is not a good thing, because it reflects the incredibly insecure state of Christianity in the places where it goes on (Iraq, Syria, etc). Call me crazy, but I don’t think that it’s a good thing that the integrity of our communions is broken down by violence and oppression from outsiders. I much prefer how it is in the United States or other western nations where our churches are strong enough to have friendly but well-defined relationships with those outside of the communion.

Put bluntly, I would not trade a single Christian’s blood or security (no matter what church they are from) in order to be in communion with Rome, because I don’t want to be in communion with Rome in its current form in the first place. (Fr. Patrick got that part right, at least.)

I always allow for your point of view dzheremi. Stimulates my mind. That acceptable form does seem to remain elusive. The US I agree with, I’m just not sure there is a strong enough attempt to dialogue, I believe the dialogue which occurs is strong.

 

[josephback]

Exactly! For the life of me, I do not comprehend why non-Catholics have such a difficult time understand what constitutes church. Some have even told me one does not need ANY church at all?

As a former adherent of the Reformation, one is born into a whole different environment. There is no concept (except maybe with Anglicans) of an authoritative, hierarchical, institutional capital C Church. There is no authoritative “magisterium” which can define and proclaim dogma - it’s the Bible and whoever interprets it as first priority. In theory this holds individuals accountable to Scripture, but in practice holds Scriptire hostage to private opinion. If one becomes devout and studies into the Reformation, they learn about the mythical “church catholic” as opposed to the Catholic Church, and that the visible Church can err but the invisible cannot. Those born outside the Catholic Church are only working with what they’ve been taught, erroneous as it is.

 

[josephback]

I don’t think the idea of the Church is contested among the Fathers either. Which is why I freely assert that the RCC and EOC are both part of the Church. This idea that to be part of ‘the Church’ we must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome is a doctrinal innovation unknown to the Fathers. Yes, we ought to all be in communion, but to say that one bishop arbitrators that is simply not attested in the early Church at all.

You sure about that? What about Cyprian’s “one chair, one church” formula? I think your Anglicanism is influencing your answer.

 

[PJM]

=aidanbradypop;10632909]This topic came up on another thread. It is not really on the topic of the thread so I wanted to create a thread for it, because it is really interesting!

If AND ONLY IF;

Maybe?

I’d certainly check it out if there were a Church in my area.

 

[dzheremi]

I always allow for your point of view dzheremi. Stimulates my mind. That acceptable form does seem to remain elusive. The US I agree with, I’m just not sure there is a strong enough attempt to dialogue, I believe the dialogue which occurs is strong.

The acceptable form of what? (Sorry, I’m not clear what you’re referring to here.)

I don’t know, Gary…I’m just sick of people who don’t have to risk martyrdom as our brothers and sisters in other places regularly do telling us how it will take martyrdom on a grand scale to bring us together. It’s callous, and besides that it’s not going to happen. Martyrdom does not bring otherwise irreconcilable churches into union. Tertullian wrote that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church – not that it is the unity of the Church. Catholics are martyred every day in some places, Orthodox are martyred every day in some places. We generally grieve together, but not commune together, as a result. Unless martyrdom somehow gets Rome to change its ecclesiology and distinctive doctrines which separate it from Orthodoxy (and I don’t know why that would cause such a change), the best it can do for us here on earth is strengthen our resolve to remain in our faith and provide us with more powerful intercessors before the throne of God. Now, obviously, that’s not nothing…far from it…but that’s also not unity in our time.

 

[Trebor135]

Do you know Philip J. Lee’s book “Against the Protestant Gnostics”?

Yes.

I’ve been trying to find a reasonably priced copy for a few years now, ever since hearing it mentioned on Fr. Andrew Damick’s “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcast on AFR. Lee is apparently a Presbyterian pastor.

It isn’t easy to get cheap. I’m pretty sure (I should check) that a copy is waiting with one of my relatives in the U.S. by now. When I read it, I’ll let you know how worthwhile the book is.

I was raised Presbyterian, and I don’t believe I ever heard any pastor in that church ever talk about gnosticism (or any other history related to the pre-Reformation Church, for that matter).

Haha, no surprises there. History destroys Protestantism like baptism destroys prior sin.

Anyway, the argument can be made that at least “low church” Protestants are essentially gnostic in their (probably unintentional) embrace of dualism which is inherent in their rejection of the sacraments/mysteries, the veneration of saints, asceticism, and pretty much anything else that has to do with physical reality in worship. You’ve probably heard all the hits, so there’s no real need to go over them in detail now. But that’s essentially what I meant: Much of modern Protestantism, steeped in Evangelist and Revivalist tendencies, is about feeling and assurance rather than action and working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling. It’s in their dematerialization of the Christian life rather than any explicit affirmation of Gnostic principles that the label fits.

Ahh, OK. I’ve heard that kind of thing before, and it makes sense.

I’ve also seen the argument that the way Protestants like to do theology–by looking at what different scholars say and searching out on the basis of their latest and greatest findings, with no resolution in sight, what the Bible is “really” saying on a given issue–is Gnostic too. But the point has never really been fleshed out in the contexts I’ve found the charge. Which is unfortunate, because it may have potential. What do you think?

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve also seen the argument that the way Protestants like to do theology–by looking at what different scholars say and searching out on the basis of their latest and greatest findings, with no resolution in sight, what the Bible is “really” saying on a given issue–is Gnostic too. But the point has never really been fleshed out in the contexts I’ve found the charge. Which is unfortunate, because it may have potential. What do you think?

That’s an interesting idea. I’d never heard it before in those terms, but I could see it. Gnosticism within a Christian context was (is) predicated on the idea that some sort of secret/esoteric knowledge, rather than the experience of salvation within the physical world (via the sacraments), is the key to the Christian life. That certainly seems to be the case according to the Protestant understanding, too, in so far as concerns the tendency to keep “searching”, rather relying on the Fathers.

 

[PJM]

=chimo;10635751]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.

Here’s an FYI:

**The Pope simply cannot [not willnot] profess ANYTHING except for GOD"S singular truth on ANY matter of “Faith and or Morals”.

READ please:

Mk. 16;14-15
Mt.28:18-20
Jn.14:16-17 FILLED in Jn.20:21-22
and John 17: 15-19

Each of these is our Perfect God commanding ONLY; precisely and exclusively His Apostles; from whom through absoutely necessary Succession, todays Pope and CC receive the same authority and Powers. Jn.17:18 AND again in jn. 20: 21-22

cf. "I your perfect God send “YOU” just as My Father “sent ME”**

 

[BrethrenBoy]

To the OP, I would enter RCIA the next day, for a number of reasons, but mostly this:
as the thread shows, for the EO and CC to return to unity, I would consider it an undeniable and irresistible evidence of the Holy Spirit moving in His Church. By no other means is unity a possibility, but the Holy Spirit.

Jon

My sentiments exactly.

 

[aidanbradypop]

My sentiments exactly.

Wow…I never expected a Anabaptist to say that.

 

[Tomster]

But I like your hats.

To the OP, I would enter RCIA the next day, for a number of reasons, but mostly this:
as the thread shows, for the EO and CC to return to unity, I would consider it an undeniable and irresistible evidence of the Holy Spirit moving in His Church. By no other means is unity a possibility, but the Holy Spirit.

Jon

Yes Jon, but could some other Lutherans see reunion between the EO an CC just a merging of the forces of antichrist?

 

[Stilldreamn]

When I was going through catechism classes back in the 1960s, we learned very little about the Catholic church except the events that occurred in the 1500s. As far as we knew, nothing had changed. It was all protestants vs Catholics. I’m not sure I knew anything at all about the Orthodox Churches.

The teaching emphasis is much different now. Although I had to educate myself on the history of the Christian church, my kids have received a much more balanced narrative through their confirmation classes. They have been taught about the rich source of our liturgy and our shared beliefs. My kids and the other youths do not consider themselves to be protestants, but very close kin to the Catholic and Orthodox.

Our synod President has stood up with the US Bishops on Right to Life and Religious Freedom issues. This is a real change from earlier generations. I believe the Holy Spirit is priming the pump for a massive homecoming.

 

[Peter_J]

When I was going through catechism classes back in the 1960s, we learned very little about the Catholic church except the events that occurred in the 1500s. As far as we knew, nothing had changed. It was all protestants vs Catholics. I’m not sure I knew anything at all about the Orthodox Churches.

The teaching emphasis is much different now. Although I had to educate myself on the history of the Christian church, my kids have received a much more balanced narrative through their confirmation classes. They have been taught about the rich source of our liturgy and our shared beliefs. My kids and the other youths do not consider themselves to be protestants, but very close kin to the Catholic and Orthodox.

Of course, who’s-close-kin-to-whom is one of the very things that we disagree on.

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed. Baba Shenouda, remind us again, what is Orthodoxy? Ahhh, that’s right…Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.

 

[NoWings]

Absolutely.

I, an Agnostic, would convert the very next day. I would do this because I would know that a miracle would have occurred for these two churches to reunite.

As it stands, I’m not holding my breath. Nothing short of a miracle will ever reunite these churches.

 

[JonNC]

Yes Jon, but could some other Lutherans see reunion between the EO an CC just a merging of the forces of antichrist?

It isn’t the kind of language I hear from Lutherans, generally. Even the charge against the office of the papacy isn’t regularly part of catechesis. Additionally, the phrase “forces of antichrist” sounds more like some of radical protestants, and not something one would often hear from a Lutherans.

All that said, however, more likely than your scenario is that some, maybe many, Lutherans would not be moved one way of the other.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Yes Jon, but could some other Lutherans see reunion between the EO an CC just a merging of the forces of antichrist?

Granted I’m not an expert on Lutherans, but I would honestly be surprised if anyone here can cite even one Lutheran leader who applies the term antichrist to the Orthodox.

 

[gus]

When I was going through catechism classes back in the 1960s, we learned very little about the Catholic church except the events that occurred in the 1500s. As far as we knew, nothing had changed. It was all protestants vs Catholics. I’m not sure I knew anything at all about the Orthodox Churches.

The teaching emphasis is much different now. Although I had to educate myself on the history of the Christian church, my kids have received a much more balanced narrative through their confirmation classes. They have been taught about the rich source of our liturgy and our shared beliefs. My kids and the other youths do not consider themselves to be protestants, but very close kin to the Catholic and Orthodox.

Our synod President has stood up with the US Bishops on Right to Life and Religious Freedom issues. This is a real change from earlier generations. I believe the Holy Spirit is priming the pump for a massive homecoming.

It was a divided Christainity that helped the Islamic takeover of the Christain middle east and North Africa that aided the rapid advance of Islam.
Hopefully history will not repeat itself.

 

[dzheremi]

It was divided Christian powers who helped repel Ahmed Gragn and the other East African Muslims from destroying Ethiopia (fought off by Orthodox Ethiopian and Catholic Portuguese forces). It was also a divided Christianity (Latins and Byzantines) that undertook the first crusade and eventually recaptured Jerusalem, but couldn’t hold it. And likewise, a united Christianity, solidly Catholic (and fully in union with the Eastern Roman churches) Spain, could not somehow repel the North African Muslims who overran the Iberian Peninsula.

People need to stop talking like union between the RC and EO will magically right the wrongs of the world. Many, many Orthodox from lands that were then under Ottoman Muslim domination came under Rome in past eras…it did not stop the oppression of Christians in those lands. In fact, a case could be made, using the example of the East Syrian/Persian Church and events like its Synod of Dadisho, that sometimes churches are strengthened in terms of their national position by proving that they are not beholden to foreign elements, be they Western Roman or Byzantine (that was the problem for the CoE at that time, as the Persians and the Byzantines were enemies, so the association of Christianity with the Byzantine empire caused many problems for the native Christians within the Persian empire; at the Synod of Dadisho, they declared themselves free of the influence of the Byzantines). In other words, by not uniting.

 

[JonNC]

Granted I’m not an expert on Lutherans, but I would honestly be surprised if anyone here can cite even one Lutheran leader who applies the term antichrist to the Orthodox.

The term is used specifically in regards to the claim that the office of the papacy has
universal jurisdiction, and that salvation hinges on being in communion with the Bishop
of Rome, so it wouldn’t apply to Orthodoxy. I think Tomster’s question is whether some Lutherans would reject unity because of the inclusion of the Bishop of Rome.

Jon