www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

Hello Harmon!
True enough, but there is a reason they do not want to be in communion with Rome. They aren't just prejudiced, or arbitrarily singling Rome out. The church of Rome has some truly unique characteristics that make it impossible to share communion. This may be true, but I am more inclined to think that most Roman Catholics are just confused about Orthodoxy and really don't care to be bothered to learn any more.
Bridges are for crossing, if you are on a bridge and not moving...you're stuck! I say forget the bridge, win souls for Christ! I submit that this is exactly what the Eastern Catholic churches should do. Seek the Face of God. And there is more than enough work yet to do in the vinyard, might as well get to it.
This would be the best possible result.
Well, all I can say is there is nothing at all wrong with asking the question. But if you find out that you are something of an impediment, you might do something about that.
Most certainly.

Peace and love in Christ,
Michael

Apotheon,


instead of Francis Dvornik, I would point to Philip Sherrard's ("Greek East and Latin West") way of seing primacy from a theological and christian doctrinal point of view. I do not need to mention hierhin John Meyendorff's "Peter and Primacy of Love".
We cannot draw conclusions, as to formulate what papacy is (for that matter even church-state relation), simply by looking at abuse and excess during the course of history, on the part of church individuals, as on that of the emperors.


The point [where we strongly disagree with each other] is simple: is the formulation of the exsistence of papacy, as we see it from especially 11 century onwards, on which [formulation] modern papacy rests in its essentiality (active or inactive). Along this goes all the doctrinal inovations of this time.


Essentialy, as a latin christian would cease to be a roman catholic, if he would remain latin in rite but would refute pope, considering him in an eastern orthodox way, so would an eastern orthodox cease to be such, if he would accept pope as it is within the roman church, even if he would still keep the eastern rite.


In West, as I see from what I have read, the pope is equalised with Christ Himself, so that, after believing that the pope is the Vikar of Christ, not by virtue of his predecessors, but immediately by virtue of being pope; if the pope is equal to Tradition so that the pope is actually the Tradition itself becoming a Himself; and after formulating his infallibility, then one day this mentality will lead to even further deepening of his position, surely without limitation, why not above the church.


I think, this is a distortion of Christianity.


Further more read Justin Popovich's Papism the oldest protestantism [geocities.com]

Thank you, Michael, for your warm words about my post. But I thank you most for your closing prayer, which I quoted.

I honestly don't believe anymore that the reunion of the churches will happen from agreements by hierarchs or theologians. I believe that that reunion of the churches will take place by the love of Christ in our hearts. Then, as Vladimir Lossky quoted someone else in his introduction to his "Mystical Theology," we will not so much restore the union of the Church but rediscover it.

I have two examples in mind.

One example is the Catholics and the Donatists in North Africa in the first millennium. Their schism started over a valid question: Were priests who had denied the faith still priests? The Catholics said yes; the Donatists said no. It is a valid theological question, but the hatred that erupted between them was not of the Gospel. Consequently, they destroyed themselves: by the weakness which they made in themselves by their hate, which was then exploited by others who conquered them. Now, when archaeologists sift through the ruins of their church buildings, it cannot be determined which temple belonged to which church, only that they are both now gone.

The other example is today between the Catholic Melkites and the Orthodox Antiochians. They too have valid theological questions. But, in face of hard persecution, they have drawn near to Christ -- and thus to each other. They get along with each other; they share each other's buildings when necessary; they inter-marry with each other; and they even love one another. They still have differences of belief, but they are closer to Christ and one another than many who officially belong to the same belief. Truly, they are one Church more than many others.

Over the last thousand years, there have been many attempts by princes, hierarchs and theologians to cobble together reunion of the churches. Mostly, they have failed. It was not for lack of effort or desire. It was for lack of love for Jesus Christ in the hearts of all the people.

Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there I am also present."

It is not by gathering or invoking His Name that makes Him present. He is always present. As He said, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."

Instead, gathering in the Name of Jesus and praying the Name of Jesus in our hearts makes us aware of His presence: He who is already among us.

The exterior life of man only changes only when the interior life changes. Change of man comes from change within: change of the heart, metanoia, by repentance unto God. If we want a united Church, we must have united hearts in Christ.

Then, as Vladimir Lossky quoted someone else in his introduction to his "Mystical Theology," we will not so much restore the union of the Church but rediscover it.

-- John

My church and the Melkites are probably the model of rapprochement, you are right in that regard. The type of reconciliation you are talking about is certainly a precursor to mending all fences. Peoples hearts and minds must be changed first.

In the end though, doctrinal agreements have to be reached. Something has to change to bring about a single patriarch, a unified church and communion shared by all.

Andrew

Amen.


Andrew,

I agree with this statement.

But, I also think that the changing of hearts and minds needs the greater emphasis -- so that people will be prepared, wiling and happy with the doctrinal changes (if they ever come).

I think this Forum, for example, goes a long way to serving that need because it gives people a place to charitably and thoroughly discuss our differences . . . and thus to learn about each other . . . and thus, God willing, to grow in love and respect for each other.

Now, if only more of this could be done: at the parish level, in charitable works and organizations, and so on.

If the people are not reconciled in genuine love and holy regard for each other, the doctrinal statements will fall on deaf ears and closed hearts; and they will fail.

Now here is my main point: reconciliation --of man with God and of man with fellow man-- ultimately begins and ends in our own theosis, in our own hearts and lives. If we do not grow in love for Christ, directly and in the neighbor, the doctrinal changes won't matter.

Hence, I wish there was more emphasis on becoming holy . . . by loving Christ more . . . by keeping His Gospel more in our hearts and in our lives. Living ever deeper the life in Christ --by prayer, fasting and almsgiving; while participating in the Mysteries; and while living morally and compassionately -- this, I think, is the needed precursor to reconciliation among the Churches.

I'm not saying first become holy and then talk. I'm saying, instead, that the talking is part of the process of becoming holy, but holiness is the main task; and it should be emphasized as such.

You wrote well: "Something has to change to bring about a single patriarch, a unified church and communion shared by all." I agree with that. However, I think that the something is our theosis, and it begins in our own souls and in our dealings with the neighbor. Hence, that is where I think the emphasis needs to be. And when we do that better, we will be better able to do the rest of the work of reconciliation too.

-- John

John, I don't at all disagree with what you're saying. In the case of the Antiochians and the Melkites in particular though, I don't know how much more can be done at the personal level (beyond of course the fact that none of us ever lives up to the standards God has set for us).

The last mile is going to be the most difficult. The Zoghby proposal was interesting, but didn't work . Something must be done, and the things I've read by the Melkite patriarch to my mind are quite worrying.

Andrew

Andrew,

The more I learn about the Antiochian Orthodox Church and its relations with the Melkite Catholic Church, the more I am impressed. I genuinely pray: may God bless you both for the real rapproachment you have achieved by God's grace. I honestly don't know what else your church and the Melkites can do without some kind of agreement among the hierarchs (and the changes on both sides that would require). But I do know this: the Antiochians and the Melkites can keep on being an example for the rest of us ! Merry Christmas.

-- John

Dear Friends,

This reminds me about what happened when our new bishop was consecrated by our Patriarch Lubomyr Husar.

The Patriarch greeted the Ukr. Orthodox Bishop Yurij and then gave the standard appeal for Christian Unity "as it existed in Rus' at the time of St Volodymyr the Great."

Later, at the banquet, Bishop Yurij got up and made reference to that point - it had obviously "moved" him . . .

And he then quietly said, as if by way of response, "Yes, if we want to have unity as at the time of St Volodymyr the Great, then we only need join together in the Faith of St Volodymyr the Great!"

A silence enveloped the audience . . .

I actually saw my old parish priest, who was sitting across from me, bare his teeth as if in a snarl . . .

But he has two doctorates from Rome, so what could one expect from him?

Alex

I think a lot of very wise things have been said in this thread. Now I will add a few of my comments, and hope not to detract from said wisdom too much

This issue is very dear to me as a former BC who has joined Orthodoxy. It has been said that Orthodox do not desire communion with Rome. I don't know how universally true that is throughout Orthodoxy. I know my family and I and many of our friends yearn and pray for communion with Rome, but we are also mostly former Catholics and have a very ecumenical viewpoint. I think for many Orthodox like many Catholics, really don't understand the history of the Church and don't really even care. Re-establishing communion isn't something they even think about, except recently as it is becoming closer and closer, and is harder to ignore. Another problem is Orthodox Christians are taught, just as Catholics are taught the opposite, that the Catholic Church left the Orthodox Church, if they are taught anything about the other at all. Orthodox books are fond of showing a timeline of Christianity that shows Orthodoxy as a straight line, with Catholicism branching off at 1054, as it shows the various Protestant churches branching off from Catholicism. I find this inaccurate, and is an example of prideful triumphalism, which is present on both sides (just that fewer Catholics know of Orthodoxy than Orthodox know of Catholicism).

I would say the Churches split from each other, like a tree split in twine by lightning, rather than one church leaving the other like in protestantism.

A part of the problem is hard feelings, especially amongst us Orthodox who are quick to forget our sins against the Catholics yet quick to remember their sins against us, leading to misinformation or misunderstanding. From time to time, probably more in America than elsewhere, we tend to act like so many of the protestants do by having such strong anti-Catholic feelings, usually based off inaccurate or incomplete understandings of certain aspects of Catholicism. (An Orthodox friend and I were once talking about how "Orthodox" the Coptic Orthodox are, and after I expressed my desire for immediate Re-Communion with them, he said "But they have a POPE!"). Similarly, when I was Catholic I once believed that the Orthodox must be Protestants because I was taught that they left the Catholic Church, and that the Pope is what holds the whole universe together, or something along those lines ;-).

I digress.. the question is whether or not the uniate churches (and I'm not using this in the pejorative) are an impedemint to reunion. I would say inherently, no, but indirectly, yes. The only issue that arises because of their existance is one of practicality: What happens to them? Should they be forced to choose between the Catholics and the Orthodox, since they are sort of inbetween? My view on this has changed over time, largely in part to this forum. I used to say yes, they need to pick one or the other. I have changed my view. Traditionally, the boundaries of independent churches coincides roughly with political boundaries, hence the national churches in Orthodoxy today. Well that certainly isn't the case in American Orthodoxy, although we are trying slowly to reunite as we were before Communism cut off Moscow's ties to America. It is also not the case in Catholicism, which is for all intents and purposes, one big church across probably every nation in the world, even if you only count the Latin church. So the only problem they pose from there is what to do with them- I would say autocephaly for all the uniates would be the answer in a post-reunion Church, and that parts of the Latin church would likely become autonomous or autocephalous over time for practical reasons. But no matter what, logistics is no reason to keep from reunion.

So then, what is keeping us from reunion? I believe the Holy Father truly desires reunion of the church, and I am very moved and filled with hope by that. I think many Orthodox heirarchs, clergy, and laymen want it just as badly, but I don't think the majority of them, including unfortunately the EP and MP, see it is a real high priority, which is sad. I think very few if any are fundamentally opposed to the notion.

Here's where I think the Uniates hurt reunion: they scare the Orthodox of what "communion" means to Rome and serve as an example of exactly how it should not happen. To reiterate a major theme of this thread, Rome needs to change its stance on this. The Catholic Communion is not how intercommunion is intended to work, nor how it worked itself out in the Apostolic Age. When the Catholic and Orthodox Churches split, the Roman church was but 1 of 5 autocephalous Patriarchates. The Orthodox will refuse any union that doesn't restore the ancient system of autocephalous sister churches still in use in Orthodoxy, which is why I think the uniates would be independent, and why I agree wholeheartedly with the posters who have suggested a push in that direction. I think it is inevitable, but if it happens before reunion, it will be a gesture that will reassure the Orthodox and help change the view of Rome- but even if the other 21 Catholic churches stay subjucated to Rome before then, a change of Roman perception has to take place- Communion is not subjugation. Just as the other Apostles were not subjugated under St. Peter, neither should bishops of today be under the complete authority of one bishop.

Another hindrance I think may be the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is quite often hard for men to give up prestige. Orthodox Christians routinely forget that the Patriarch of Constantinople is only the Ecumenical Patriarch pro tempore, the title belongs to the Roman Pontiff. I hope that the sin of pride would not hold him back from entering reunion, especially since Constantinople is given the 2nd most honorable place by the Ecumenical Councils, but I see it as being at least a minor problem.

I believe that remaining separated, even though the Lord Himself prayed that we would be whole is a great sin, and a clumsy union is better than remaining in this sinful state we have been in for far too long. We are the Apostolic and Complete Churches- we have the fullness of the faith, and we have the same faith, even if our theology differs slightly. Diversity was the rule in the ancient church. I think that Rome goes too far in describing the indescribable, at least without an ecumenical council, but that doesn't make it -wrong-... can't we debate these things as a united church in a council like we did 1000 years ago? And if our faith is the same, shouldn't we be united as Christ desires?

Many of my Orthodox friends say that the Orthodox Churches have kept the Faith unchanged whilst it has been changed in Catholicism. I do not believe this to be the case. I believe we share the same Faith, and the closest thing to a difference would be the filioque (which we haven't even agreed to disagree with theologically, just the way it was added). I would say that Rome has specified Truth to a degree we cannot currently accept, but these are details which can be worked out later, or could be lowered in status from Dogma to theologumenon or somethign. I disagree with the administrative structure of the Catholic Church, Universal Jurisdiction, and the way She treats the uniates- but the Faith is there and the rest will be worked out with the Grace of God.

I believe another, truly Ecumenical Council is a big part of the solution. Whether we should restore communion, then work it out, or have a council first, with the intention of working out our differences to result in Reunion, I do not know. I tend to favor reunion first, but as reciting the Creed together is a major part of Communion, I don't see how we can do that without resolving that peskly little filioque issue. Of course what I said about restoring union applies also to our Oriental Orthodox brethren with whom we have determined we share the same faith, yet have not restored full communion.


Goodness, it appears I have written a small novel. Sorry for my verbosity, but after reading 5 pages of comments on the subject the wheels were really turning in my head- but I have to stop now finished or not; it is late and I'm having trouble formulating sentences for my tiredness. I think I may have started repeating myself anyway. Sorry for that.


God bless and good night,
NF

Hi Guys,

Still being new here, could anyone give me the web address to Apotheoun's website? I would be most obliged.

Katie

Dear Katie H:

Wherever you see Todd/Apotheoun posting or one of his posts, click his profile icon (left-most) and then click his website address.

If unsuccessful, his current publicized website is at:

http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/

Dear NF,

No problem, it was an excellent post.


On this question, I would agree with the many on this forum who have said that when Catholics and Orthodox enter into full communion, the "Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome" will rejoin their mother churches, the canonical Orthodox Churches.

This is not to say, of course, that every individual EC will rejoin their mother church (although I would certainly hope that the majority would be eager to do so): they would of course have the option of joining the Latin Church instead.

In fact, I would go further (and I expect some will disagree with me here) and say that those ECs who decide to join the Latin Church (at the time of reunion) should even have the option of continuing to use the Byzantine Rite*. (And similarly, those in the Antiochian Orthodox Church who use a western rite should have the option to remain in that church and continue using that rite.)

I would be interested in hearing your further thoughts on this matter.

Blessings,
Peter.

*Although, to be realistic, it is likely to be a highly Latinized use.

Dear Peter,

Well, if the situation in Ukraine after 1946 is any indication, it is highly unlikely that those Byz. Catholics who, in the event of Orthodox-Catholic reunion in future, choose to join the Latin Church would keep to a "Byzantine Rite."

After the UGCC was formally "reunified" with its "Mother Orthodox Church" in 1946, Ukrainian Catholics who refused to "go over to Orthodoxy" entered the RC Church and their descendants have now formed a "Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church" that has the Novus Ordo et al. in Ukrainian with their bishops and hierarchy (I have a few of their prayer books).

There is not the slightest TRACE of Byzantine spirituality among these descendants of UC's - not the slightest. Nor is there any desire among them to return to their ancestral UGCC either.

No, when the East and West finally reunite, according to God's Will and in His good time, the BC's will doubtless have a choice and it will not involve a "Byzantine Rite" formation in the Latin Church.

Alex

Nicholas, that was an excellent post. You have given me a lot to think about, especially in the following quote. If the goal is restoring the pentarchy while also recognizing primacy to Rome, I am at a loss for how this can be accomplished. But, the wisdom and the Christian love that you and many others at this forum display are steps along the way for doing so. Again, your whole post was excellent; thank you.

-- John

NF:
I think your post has a lot of merit. But I am curious about some of your language on the what you perceive as the real impediment: subjugation. I am interested in understanding what is it, exactly, that you perceive as "subjugation".