www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

There is no good reason for schism among those professing to be Christians.

Sure there are lots of excuses for sins. Christ calls us to rise above them. Those who fail or refuse to reconcile with Him and each other fail to do so.

Well, just as the Latins and the Orthodox sincerely disagree with each other, I sincerely disagree with your comments. Unity in the profession of the Orthodox faith is what brings communion, and without it there can be none.

God bless,
Todd

So far Joe seems to be the only one who's trying to answer the question. But let me rephrase it anyway. From an Orthodox point of view would Roman Catholics be required to give up doctrines that the Orthodox reject as erroneous ? AND let's look at doctrines other than Papal Infallibility which always seems to overshadow everything else.

I don't want to sound angry, but lofty replies about love and charity and understanding do absolutely nothing to answer what I think is a very specific question.

Lawrence,

I have to run to a meeting, so I will make a brief comment. Besides certain teachings about the papacy, it seems to me that most Orthodox hierarchs and theologians would probably require that the Roman Catholic Church give up certain doctrines and practices such as indulgences, the filioque, and the current Catholic theology of marriage that sees the couple as the minister of the sacrament. There could be other teachings, possibly, but I have to think about it. Certainly a number of teachings would have to be reduced to the level of private theological opinion, such as teachings on contraception, divorce and remarriage, purgatory, and the immaculate conception.

Joe

I have no intention to interject this towards you personally sir and only feel moved to speak by the Spirit of charity however, through your statement the Holy Spirit reminds me of the reactions the Pharasees had towards Jesus by your making mention that replies about love are lofty and unable to answer the question when I feel its obvious that Jesus taught charity IS the answer, though I realize you do not see that from my point of view.

Thats the best answer I will give as I am unwilling to descend into theological discussion over dogma or doctrine from either Catholic or Orthodox points of view.

It has long been proven that disagreements exist. What has yet to be proven is that disagreements can be risen above for Christ's sake.

Joe,

I believe the quote from I Corinthians continues, "Charity (agape') conquers all." It is impossible for us mere mortals, mere finite, contingent beings, to know with certainty which of our traditions are from God and which are from men (and to what degree and extent, etc.). It is only by the light of grace that we can know such things, and it is by being more and more deeply united with God and each other in Christ that this light can come to us.

It is charity that overcomes boundaries and heals divisions. Let us not forget that the primary cause of the schism was not any doctrinal issue, but a mutual mistrust and willingness of each side to do without the other.

One problem I have with the current RC position is that it quickly calls the Orthodox churches "defective," and yet this defect lies primarily in the fact of their being willing to be separate from the RCs--but isn't this equally true for the RCs, who have been just as willing, historically, to be separate from the Orthodox churches?

A remarkable statement was attributed to Pope John Paul II (does anyone know the source for this?): "The question is not whether or not we can be reunited, but whether or not we still have the right to remain separate." Such a statement would suggest that he was willing--at least in theory--to negotiate some things that would seem "untouchable," and called upon the Orthodox hierarchy to do the same.

Well, both love and sincerity are subject to degrees, since none of us is perfect and can always continue to grow in Christ.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Lawrence,

That's a different question from what you originally asked. Your original question was, "What [are] the official positions of the various Orthodox Churches concerning the Roman Catholic Church?" Fr. Serge answered that there are no "official" positions as such. You then restated the question to read,This is not the same as asking which teachings will need to be abandoned, and I think my answer, as well as others that have followed on this thread, did indeed address this latter question as stated.

Since you are not asking what the opinions are of various hierarchs and theologians, I would have to assume you are wanting to know what the outcome would be in the event that a joint synod actually took place and these matters were prayerfully but frankly discussed with a stated goal of arriving at a resolution. I don't believe anyone can answer that in advance of its actually taking place.

I do believe, however, that if such a meeting were to take place a great deal of good would come of it, and that the outcome would be something that none of us would have anticipated. Joe's recent post gives a fairly concise list of what the Orthodox fathers would be bringing to the table--but God alone can know what they would be walking away with.

Let us remember that one of the reasons these divisions came about is a failure to rightly discern which doctrines are truly from God (and how these are to be rightly understood), and which ones are from men. I think it is very likely that certain doctrines would be reduced to the level of private theological opinion. I also think it is very likely that Indulgences would be done away with, and other changes would be made as well. But any real progress would have to really discern the real truth of God, which really is intermingled in all these doctrines.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Father deacon Richard,

Thank you for your posts. I can appreciate what you are saying. At what point do we draw the line though? Should we invite Anglicans to the table? Lutherans? Or are we Catholics and Orthodox united on all that is essential and we just need to agree to disagree on some non-essential matters?

Joe

My friend, is there any doctrine that can't be compromised? What you are saying is what Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Baptists (at least the ecumenical ones) say to us. Since we all worship Christ, why have any other doctrines? As a Baptist, I would have been all for that. But I came to believe that the apostolic proclamation is much more than just "Jesus is Lord."

Joe

I am happy for you, you will find no protest in me. I respect all catholic praxis irregardless of culture. I know the faith and any amount of opinion on my part would be fruitless.

You could say that I will not entertain dispute among any apostles. The Pentarchy is equally apostolic and respectable and to beat dead horses in this medium I feel is only to foster further dissent.

I have never met an ecumenical protestant save one seeking to accept the true "church". If your including hidden protestant agendas to proselytise in that assessment then well - I do not.

Pax and Gods speed.
Katha and Holos � "According to the whole".

I agree with the 'love' statements Joe.

Love goes hand in hand with understanding. You can not have one without the other. One understand the other person better when one comes from a position of love. One mis-understand the other more often when one comes from a position of distrust and suspicion. I think that is just cold empirical fact.

We all know that there are a lot of semantics involved in East/West theological disputes. All one need to is browse this board to find out that East/West disputes almost always turn out to revolve around - the meaning of words. One side argues that these particular words mean one thing ... and the other side argues that the same words mean something else. Witness the endless debate regarding the filioque (what is the debate - one word!?). I have been at this board on and off for several years and you can always find the filioque debate rageing month after month year after year. People think it is important. Look what one word has caused (or did it?).

But semantics is just the symptom of the disease. The real disease is that one side (pick your side) wants the side (pick your side) to be just like itself. ... A "you change first - and then we can talk. If you don't change ... I do not see anything to talk about." thing.

I have never seen any marital separations cured using that formula.

No human marriage could survive such a thing. Love begins by accepting the other person as he is in himself-herself. Love is not judicial upon the other person unless it is invited by the other person. Love does not demand that the other person speak in certain ways, or dress in certain fashions, or by molding the other person into an image of - myself. Real love is not dependent upon the other person fulfilling demands or being measured successfully according to some standard.

From my perspective - both major players in the church (both the Orthodox collective and the Petrine collective) have both talked themselves into a box that was many years in the construction. Both have done great damage to their human side (the human management of the church).

The divine element of the Church (which is the presence of Christ himself) remains undivided and pristine ... in Mass and Liturgy, in theology (when both are understood in their own context), in sacraments, ... how could it be otherwise?

The Church of Christ - is not the collective (nor the management) of its human members. Neither laity, not priests, nor bishops of any kind) ... because Jesus himself is the church. The Divine element is 'the Church'. The Divine presence in its broken and failing human members.

This is one reason why one must reject the idea that any essential of the Church resides in Peter and is extended through Peter (Rome) to the other churches through a judicial submission to Peter. One must reject the idea that any other apostolic church is defective in any way - if not submissive to Peter.

... Right? ...

and so the Divine part of the Church ... is not diminished by the failings of its human members.

And so it seems to me that both the Orthodox collective and the Petrine collective - make a human mistake when each claims to be, in some essential and origin way, the source of truth and orthodoxy.

I can hear St. Paul saying; "If you have all truth, and all orthodoxy, but have not charity - what do you have? Nothing."

Both the Orthodox Church and the Petrine Church (both collectives) have acted like .. "I am the eldest/biggest and so I should run things." And none of the smaller churches, also founded by apostles, really count for anything.

Most of these smalled churches have merrily gone on their own way and ignore the bickering between the two biggest brothers.

I prime example of this is the Coptic church - which - during the initial East/West split - was pressured to pick a side (Latin based theology? or Greek based theology?) and when it refused to pick a side or even get into the arguments at all - it was accused of heresy and excommunicated. Since that time both the Latin and Orthodox have admitted (after research) that the Coptic church was never Monophysite. All is forgiven as let us pretend it never happened.

In my mind (not that anyone wants to look into my mind) - the originally Church - was independent churches (communities) and the most powerful glue that united them was not only apostolic founding - but also a particular way to live by conscience and communal charity. I do not think you can separate conscience and charity. If we lost one we lost the other.

And so apparently the mystery of Christianity is that everything else falls into its proper place - when we place conscience and charity first and prime. Providence, apparently, takes care of the rest.

If we have charity - we can have all the rest.
If we do not have charity - none of the rest matters.

It is almost like Christ is saying "Love one another - and I will take care of the rest."

That is the way I see it tonight.

-ray

Dear Deacon Richard,

This is of the most importance. If we believe that only we contain the 'truth', and want the other to capitulate to our version of the 'truth', then there is no way that we can unite, for we see it as our 'right'...and it matters not what denomination we belong to. If we were though to perceive unity as not being within our 'right', but rather that we have no 'right' in God's eyes to remain separate, then unity will become of the most importance to us, and that in itself will bring it about.

Once unity is something that we know we have to achieve if we are to accept ourselves as deserving a rightful place within our Lord's Kingdom, then separation of the Churches becomes abhorrent. I think that is what we should pray for. Not that we are 'right', and the other should capitulate to what we perceive as being 'right', but rather that we should see that we have no 'right' to impose our limits on our Lord's universal Church.

As for the differences which we surely have, that would be absolved once we acquire the humility to place our Lord's universal Church above and beyond our differences. With the humility and the love within us in our willingness to do so, the Holy Spirit will guide and lead us. Without that love and humility, it would be futile, because our God's Spirit can only work through the purity of one's heart..and surely purity does not exist within a rebellious and prideful heart. So in that sense, humility and love is everything. Unity can only be achieved through the hearts of the individuals within the Churches themselves.

God Bless,

Zenovia

The question still stands, Could the various Orthodox Churches accept being in communion with a Church that would hold doctrines they reject, or would those doctrines have to be changed ? I'm in the process of e-mailing that question to several Orthodox priests and so far an OCA priest has answered, no, unless those doctrines the Orthodox reject were somehow redefined.

Joe,

You are asking some important questions here.

Yes, I do think the Lutherans and Anglicans have a place in the discussions, though not necessarily right away. Just when they should come in is not something for me to decide--the Catholic and Orthodox council fathers would have to make that decision.

Here again, the council fathers will have to be the ones to make that judgment. I believe that a council of this kind might make declarations with regard to teachings that have long been regarded as dogmatic, and although I could speculate about which ones, I don't think it's healthy spiritually to go very far on that path.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

WOW! Ray, I am so glad that you are back here with your brilliant and enlightened posts on this subject! I find myself in agreement with your every thought.

Any chance of you becoming an Ecumenical Patriarch or Pope soon?!?

God bless you,

In Christ,
Alice