www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Benefits of union with Rome

Dear Markduk,

Actually, when the MP was under communism, it already had an agreement in place with the government whereby Orthodox bishops agreed to slowly close down churches every so often . . .

Fr. Serge Keleher was quite upset when he found this out!

There was nothing they could do, of course. But the churches they had were already bursting at the seams and so this put added pressure on everyone there.

Finally, people in Russia began to organize to protest in the days before Gorbachev took over.

Women often got involved in these protests and sit-ins, professional, well-educated women doctors, engineers etc.

They would demand that the government return to them churches that were transformed into libraries, bars etc.

In some cases, they won their battles.

However, the MP has used threats to go after Catholic churches et alia before.

Rome had no fear when it established its Latin diocese in Russia. One may assume that Rome knew what the approximate reaction from the MP would be.

Alex

Okay, back to the original topic of this thread.

Would it be fair to say that Roman Primacy makes it easier to identify where the Church is and where it is not? That is, those who are in communion with the Roman Patriarch belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, but those who are not in communion with him are not members of said Church.

Jason, opening up a can of worms here....

Jason,
I dont know about that!
(And me one of the strongest advocates of the Primacy of the Pope, and for that matter universal jurisdiction).
We recognize the Orthodox Church fully as the Catholic Church, although there is a less than perfect communion with them.
To say they are not the Church is far far too strong a statement.
Stephanos I

With all the talk about benefits of union with Rome, may I give an exhortation here about the TRUE benefit of union with Rome?

I PRAY THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE SO THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW THAT YOU SENT ME.

The primary purpose of unity is to be a more effective WITNESS TO THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT KNOW CHRIST. In all the talks about preserving Eastern traditions and autonomy, please let us not forget this most basic and MOST important fact about why union with Rome would be beneficial - it is not for those who already know Christ, IT IS FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT YET KNOW CHRIST!

Blessings,
Marduk

Sanity

-ray

Dear Ray,

Don't forget the sane crusaders or the sometimes odd and difficult relationships with the Orthodox or Latin Catholics!

I'm sure you would agree that God willing we all want things to work out for the Glory of God.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

There are those who would argue that "Roman pride" has been a barrier to unity. Arguably, the root cause of the East-West schism was Rome's claims to authority and power.

Jason

Dear Jason,

I have thought about your statement and commented along those lines several times. The fact of the matter is the bishop of Rome has the power to resolve every obstacle to unity. That power is humility. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Saints are humble. The Supreme Pontiff could fall on his knees and speak with the Orthodox Church and determine all of the objections that preclude unity. He could speak ex cathedra and synchronize the Roman Catholic understanding with the Orthodox understanding. All of the Orthodox teachings could be substantiated from a traditional Patristic point of view. Lastly while speaking ex cathedra he could renounce Papal infallibility. I'm not aware of any Latin doctrine that precludes the Supreme Pontiff from speaking ex cathedra while renouncing it, I'm sure a different interpretation could be developed. Surely he would be doing God's will.

John 17
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew,
That is an imposibility! The Pope may never renounce or deny defined teaching.
The Pope of Rome is infallible concerning matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra.
(Even the Pope is bound by defined doctrine in his furture declarations.)

What he could do is further the developement of the understanding of how he speaks infallibly and how that is to be understood or even limited.The same could be said of universal jurisdiction.
But to renounce it,never.
It just ain't gonna happen.
Stephanos I

Then neither will a reunion of East and West.

Dear Father Stephanos,

Other matters of faith and defined teaching have been changed. For the sake of simplicity, is the Nicene Creed a defined teaching. I do have a favorite Pope in mind the Orthodox Leo III although I'm not an infallabilitist.

Part of The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion

VII
So then the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Symbol of Faith, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).8

Pardon my frame of mind but how am I to understand your statement. ("Even the Pope is bound by defined doctrine in his furture declarations.")

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Number #1 The addition was condemned not the teaching of the Filioque which has always been held in the west.(Properly understood as not proceeding from two seperate priniples but from a sole source from the Father, through the Son)
(Not to rehash the filioque issue that has been argued ad infinitum et ad nauseam.)
A Pope is bound by defined declared faith period.
He cannont change the doctrine of the Trinty or any other dogma, although our understanding of the doctrine can, has and could develope.
#2 Not EVERYTHING a Pope teaches is defined as a matter of faith. Canons can change and even drop from usuage due to the situation that the Church finds itself in, provided that the Canon itself does not consist of a matter of divine faith or morals.
Hence we can change how a Pope speaks infallibly and we can change how and when he can have immediate jurisdiction.
As you might or might not realize, the clarification of the Papal infalibility (which was always held in the West) was limited at Vat I, we have seen the idea of collegiality brought out more in the teachings of Vat II
and I suppose we can even see further development of these doctrines.
Stephanos I

Hence the Pope can declare that there is no longer a danger from semi pelagianism so the term Filioque can be dropped from the creed. This a far cry from denying the teaching of the Filioque.
He can also clarify collegiality, that it is only as a last resort and after request from Eastern Eparchs that a Pope will act in a Particular Patriarch or other jurisdiction.

Dear friends,

Sometimes the banter here degenerates into a kind of "one-upmanship", at least that is what it was called where I grew up. It does not serve the purpose before us. Digging in our heels in stubbornness defeats our cause. Surely, we would all like to see true unity, and certainly it is possible, yet only through the wisdom of God.

John Paul II, for years, has devoted himself to the cause of unity with the East. He has often been in a pinch caused by polemics, or has been pressed to preserve dialogue by making an unpopular decision. He always looks to the greater good. Were it in his power to relinquish authority, perhaps he would do so if it could buy unity, but it would be a false unity. This pope is by no means infatuated with power. He has a very deep humility which the Lord could perhaps use to bring about true unity. The wrenching of his heart for unity is almost physically observable. Perhaps the unifying role of the papacy is more important than the role of authority. Perhaps a re-negotiated concept of the papacy is in order. All these "perhaps" are simply my thoughts. What is important is that we continue to think and pray. Somewhere out there is the knowledge of how unity can be accomplished. In the mind of God unity does exist. Our job is to find it. So, please, let us use our knowledge charitably and with humility to seek the good of Christ's Body, and not to be clanging cymbals for our own stubbornness.
Sorry to be preachy, I just returned from a two week trip, and it has been a while since I could sound off. In the Mercy of Christ, Tammy

P.S. It is good to be back and see all of you on screen again!

Jason,
That is very similar from the Western point of view.
That the East, namely the See of Constantinople was prideful and usurped a position to which it was not Canonically entitled too.
Ya see it depends on which side of the fence your on.
Stephanos I

Dear Tammy,

You returned with an excellent post!
All one can add to it is AMEN.