www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Snobs being an obstacle for the Unity of the catholics and orthodox

I am sure the Arians considered Athanasius a snob, but he was right.

I probably will not express this very well, but I thought I should mention something.

I remember someone making the comparison of us scattered about as if we were each standing upon the rim and spokes of a big "wagon wheel"

[Linked Image]

If we want to come closer together we need to travel toward the center, up the spokes to the 'hub'.

Now the principal divisions among us have arisen over time, mostly through doctrinal developments and politics. In that sense I see the hub as representing the early Apostolic church. No formalized Canon of scripture, no Catechism, just the Sacraments and some stories. Yet people were actually being saved at that time, they were finding Christ and worshiping God and orienting their lives in fits and starts according to their new-found beliefs.

We cannot turn the clock back but we can still look back to those earlier days as our "gold standard" for Christian faith and practice.

Sometimes I think less is more. It is better to have the raw faith of a child than all the learning of a great university. Sometimes I think we know "too much" and argue theological points that should never have come between us in the first place. We make an idol of our creaturely human intellect. Perhaps an intellectual 'Tower of Babel' looking for the secret to salvation, we build these intellectual towers and they ultimately serve to divide us. BTW, that's one of the same traps the Gnostics fell into.

Am I to really think my salvation hinges upon my understanding of the "begottenness" of the Son? or what a "proceeding" of the Spirit really is? It is a recipe for madness! It is for us to acknowledge revealed Truths given to us in love but not to fret over the precise concepts, yet people have killed others over these ideas.

Even precise Christology may be beyond our true comprehension. Many scholars and ecclesiasts today are thinking that the whole monophysite-diaphysite controversy may have been an overblown problem of semantics. It is in this that churchmen are placing their hopes in future reconciliation between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. We mere mortals just cannot comprehend the Divine with our little pea brains.

We must try to find a simple faith we all can share in.

Michael

Michael,
"We must try to find a simple faith we all can share in."

yes, i agree with you

Michael

I completely agree with you...less is more...I do see the "hub" as being the early apostolic Church...I also totally agree that the principal divisions among us have arisen over time, mostly through doctrinal developments and politics.

The difference comes into the view of the Bishop of Rome. And how the early church looked at it and how primacy equaling supreme authority was not part of it.

I think the Roman Catholic Church is a bigger obstacle to unity than many would believe. Roman Catholics for years have been blaming the Orthodox for not doing enough. I do believe the Orthodox have been willing to discuss issues. What holds everything back is the Roman Catholic position of supremecy of the pope. That view is further away from "the hub". The Orthodox church simply refuses to be pulled further from "the hub" (Apostolic tradition) even though, unfortunately, some would say in essence, being pulled further from Apostolic tradition is not as important as unity of the churches...if we are being pulled further from "the hub" we loose more of the essence of Christianity and what it means for us to live as Christians...Now this being said, the Roman Catholic Church is great at making grand gestures to make the Orthodox...making it look like we are the ones opposed to unity. However, that is very far from reality. If the pope would simply give up infallable superiority, the rest of the divisions between the two Churches would fall...why???? Because if the Roman Catholic Church admitted it erred in granting infallible authority to the pope, in what Catholics see as a council therefore driven by the Holy Spirit, it would open up all of the other developments to fall. It would be an admission to "theological" development driven by politics and not the Holy Spirit. I don't see that happening in the near future. That's why I want to state again for the record that I am NOT opposed to unity of the Churches. I am however, opposed to unity of the Churches at this time. Should we be charitable to one another. YES Should we be loving and forgiving and all that other stuff. Absolutely. But, if there is going to be any real attempt at unity of the churches, this needs to be looked at and addressed.

I also want to apologize...to those who may have taken offence at my first post to Charbel...it was meant as a "light way" to attempt to get his thread off the ground...

As for Zenovia comments (most of which I agree with) this quote above actually emphisises why the synodal governance that was found in Apostolic Times and remains with the Orthodox Chruch is vital. If the pope is being held out so highly, "he cannot err". Only Christ Himself can not err. That means the Church can not err, not a specific individual. The pope is not the Church.

Chris

Dear Chris you said:

I say:

The Church cannot err in theological doctrines, so whoever leads the Church cannot err. By that I mean if the head of the Christian Church were to be two men, or three men, or thirty men, they would not be able to err when it came to forming or interpreting theological doctrines. In that sense, since the RCC has a certain formation, and has imposed upon it the person of the Pope as head and the ultimate interpreter of doctrines, he cannot err in that capacity.

The only doctrines that have been 'interpreted' by the Pope, (or so I believe, I'm not Catholic), is the acceptance of the Pope as having the last word... and through that authority the establishment of the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption as being definite and defined doctrines.

Now all this comes down to the element of trust, and through trust, understanding. If we were to consider that the RCC is really a Church, and not a secular institution trying to establish a wordly authority, we would then try to understand as to the reasons these things were established.

If the Pope made himself the last word in theological doctrine, we must ask ourselves why? Were there problems at the time? Were there RCC bishops that were trying to instill Protestant concepts within the Catholic Church?

I say this since one of the doctrines the Pope wanted to establish and formalize was the Immaculate Conception. Now the Immaculate Conception was, or so I believe, a problem from way back. Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Katherine of Sienna were both doctors of the Church, and yet they did not accept it. During the same time there were Greek theologions that did. That it was made a docrine by the Pope through his status as the 'interpretor' of theological concepts was because of revalations by one saint, and later a confirmation by another.

That this doctrine was formally estalished at such a later date in history, and contrary to saints of an earlier era, could only mean in my mind that there was a need for it. God sent these revalations to these saints, (and they surely were saints), and by doing so helped establish the Popes position...even though these positions could have become a deterrent to unity between the RCC and the Orthodox. Obviously God did not see it as being that important and neither did the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time.

As for the Assumption, it was always accepted within the Orthodox Church and was only questioned by the Orthodox, (as Bishop Ware said),
after the RCC made it doctrine.

Now to understand the Orthodox point of view, we have to realize that the Orthodox Church always existed within a different reality than the RCC. To the Orthodox the Church is like a tree, and the Orthodox Church is the trunk and the RCC a branch. In their reality of the Church, they saw this one branch, (the RCC), as usurping the authority of the universal Church, and making doctrines without the authority to do so. To them, and understandably, they can only see it as having the consequence of a potentil slide into heresy.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,

If you were the head of your own Orthodox jurisdiction, I would certainly convert to it (but only if you personally agreed to receive me . . .)

Kudos to you!

Alex

Oh Alex, I would.

I Love ya,

Zenovia

Let's not give her any ideas!!! :p

Alice

Let me begin by saying I am not a scholar, far from it, and I will add the disclaimer that I am a cradle Catholic, so my prejudices will bleed through.

Since the beginning of recorded human history and to this day, in all facets of life, and in every civilization, SOMEONE has always been in charge.

Believe it or not, I went through a very serious period of discernment deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The fact there is no ONE voice that can speak absolutely for the Church in Orthodoxy is the main reason I remain a Catholic today.

I may not be smart enough to recognize it, but I truly don't believe, even after all I've learned, that the differences between our Churches are as substantial as many more learned than myself say they are.

I agree there are valid questions as to how primacy should be played out, but there is an overwhelming need in Christianity today for a unified voice, and contrary to what some may believe the pope is not a dictator making the rules and decisions as he personally sees fit.

I think the theological arguments as to why we are a divided Church mask the underlying problems of human concession. What will happen in the event of a unified Church? This has to be the most serious and scariest question confronting the leaders of our churches today.

I do not wish to offend anyone and I am not calling upon my Orthodox brothers and sisters to convert to Catholicism. I know there are things that need to be worked out before unity can become reality, but I echo the prayer of Our Lord that all may be one.

In Christ,
Bill

Dear Bill,

I think your post is a good one, and I agree with it...The Christian world needs the voice of the Elder Bishop of Rome, and although we Orthodox are not yet reunified with him and in communion with him, thank God his voice is there.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Bill you said:

I say:

You gave me a good laugh because it's so true.

Actually though, there are serious theological differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. Things have to be resolved to a certain extent, although they can never be resolved to their fullest extent because the Orthodox think in Greek and the Catholics in Latin. Or so I think! :rolleyes:

The formation of the RCC and how it differs from the Church of the first thousand years, probably has to do with the Germanic infiltration into Italy. As for the theology, the differences might have to do with the flexibility of thoughts within the Greek language, and the greater rigidity and structure of Latin. I'm only guessing you know!

Regardless, the two Churches have taken different paths to theosis. It could be God's challenge to us so we could learn to understand one another.

Zenovia

Last week someone posted a thread about the Blessed Virgin Mary appearing in the Middle East and I immediately thought of Our Lady of Soufanieh (Syria)of which Charbel must be aware of. She appeared to an Oriental Catholic married to an Orthodox man. What strikes me is how Our Lady of Soufanieh focuses on unity between the churches;particularly the Orthodox and Catholic churches. She cites the same passage Charbel started out with.

I also find it significant that during the 20th century the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in Fatima to predominantly Catholic followers and also In Zeitoun at an Orthodox Church. The last two apparitions are considered legitimate and Our Lady of Soufanieh does not seem to be a hoax appparition either.

Surely there's a message in all this that fussing over doctrines and who's more authentic, etc is not the answer in resolving this division. There must be a better way. Our Lady of Soufanieh suggests that both groups will have to be humble and give up something for unity. Surely it is possible.

The 'my church is better than yours, more authentic, etc.' stuff may really not be all that important. These statements are not the essence of humility either and can easily be construed as proud and arrogant sounding, though I'm sure the posters are not.

Well, I hope Charbel posts again; his posts are a breath of fresh air. I'll move on as I've noticed that whenever I post the thread either dies immediately or within a few posts.(Maybe I don't belong here.)

Peace,
Indigo

Indigo,

You should see how many posts die right after my posts!

I have also noticed how some threads (not all) seem to go dormant after I have posted, but I usually attribute that to the fact that nothing further needs to be said, because it already appears the thread has run its course, unless I raise a question.

Good points Dr. Eric and Elizabeth Maria.I guess it could be considered having the final say. Hmm. a contest to the end say I.

I see I've diverted the thread,sorry.
Please, this topic is exciting -continue.

Indigo