www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Will It Take to Reunite the Churches?

Fr. J.,

Thank you for a number of excellent insights. I especially liked this one:
Judging from Johnzonaras' comments, it is clear that the establishment of canonical structures that serve to guarantee parity of the numerically smaller Eastern Churches will be essential to any real effort for reunion. I am reminded of the controversy between the small states and large states that threatened to derail the entire U.S. Constitution--it was resolved by working out a plan that would be favorable to both, and I really believe that if they could do it, we should be able to do it as well.

It also seems to me that the USCCB, as currently organized, represents no more than a "first attempt" at embodying the Vatican II mandate for decentralization of Church government. The fact that its effectiveness has been somewhat limited suggests a need to investigate ways of possibly restructuring it, and I think the desire for unity with the East might serve as an incentive to undertake such an investigation.

For that very reason, though, I tend to disagree with the statement that "... a future unity might not look much different than East and West do now." I think both sides need to 'clean out their closet,' so to speak, as a prelude to reunion. For example, I think the situation in the OC where the EP recognizes some churches as canonical while the MP does not and visa-versa constitutes a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Church hierarchs must always be aware of what message they are sending to the 'rest of the world' by their actions--or inaction--and a case like this sends out a clear message that 'we can't get our act together.'

Ideally, each side would look to the other to find ways of doing their job--i.e. preaching the Gospel to every creature--more effectively. If a kind of 'holy rivalry' with each side looking to see who can win the most souls for Christ can be fostered, I think we will be on the right track.

BTW, I also think the Latin Church should be prepared to see a number of Latin Catholics moving over to the Orthodox jurisdiction for various reasons once unity is established. Any attempt to discourage this movement must be seen as possibly jeopardizing the entire reunion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Faith!
Stephanos I

Hope! Love!

Truth!

Richard, please don't put Father John's words, as wise as they are, in my mouth. In my judgment, if reunification if it ever occurs, would probably have to be a very loose structure analogous to what Bob suggested in an earlier posting. Bluntly,in my opinion, Vatican I would have to be moth-balled at the very least. How many catholics of any jurisdiction would be willing to accept the "Holy father" being reduced in rank to primus inter pares? A major paradigm shift would have to occur in the Latin west. Such a shift could not /would not occur on Ratzinger's watch. Some Latin might ask why should all the change occur in the west? The Orthodox East would respond we have not changed you have. Most importantly, I think neither side--despite all the rhetoric to the contrary--is ready for reunion In the east, the decision will be in the hands of the laity and, as was the case at Farrarra/Florence, we would see the same results. The only question I have is who will be the next St. Mark of Ephesus?

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!!

Deacon Richard:

Again, our Orthodox brethren are very comfortable with this sort of scenario. They see this as the normal way that the Church functions; that we cannot hope to have the day come when there will not be controversy; and that the ways in which these controversies are dealt with are not themselves neat. We just saw this at work at Ravenna where the Russian Orthodox delegate walked out over a Church being represented that the EP recognized but that the MP did not. We saw it some yeras ago over the Baltic Churches coming into canonical independence form the MP: the EP and MP were formally out of communion for about six months. So how this is resolved is something our Orthodox brethren will have to work out among themselves and, if we would come into communion, we would also have to deal with it. Not to put words into the mouths of my Orthodox brethren, but I am sure they'd agree that "life is messy" and Church life can be , too.

For the Orthodox, if a future problem of this nature came up, an appeal could be made to Rome under ancient canons that call for this sort of thing, BUT Rome's function would be to reconcile NOT hand down a unilateral decision or judgment. Now I know that my Latin brethren will descend on this last statement within minutes of this post. But please understand that I am simply doing my level best to express a worldview with which we are totally unfamiliar and which I have tried very hard to learn so as to understand in order to try to find areas where reconciliaton can occur. To say that reconciliation will be easy is, again, not in the real world. We have to enter into the thinking of these brethren of ours in order to understand them and to compare our own understandings in order to see how far apart things can be when they come down to practice.

In Christ,

BOB

Deacon Richard,

I'm just curious here. What do you mean by "the Vatican II mandate for decentralization of Church government"?

Best regards,
Michael

Dear johnzonaras...

I am enjoying your posts.

-ray

Dear johnzonaras...

Allow me a comparison.

In the years of war (European kings wanting to fragment the RC into several national churches with kings as head) ... the RC created 'the bomb' (the Infallibility of one man) and stalemated the kings.

The bomb: instant life ... and instant death. Your in with the Pope ... or your totally out.

Since one really does not believe what one does not understand ... one need only profess belief ... one really need not fully understand (what is pronounced), one does not use reason or judgement, and one can even misunderstand, as long as one professes belief and acts like they believe (defend).

This engender the Orthodox and Protestants to have their own 'bomb'. In the Orthodox it is the infallibility of the consensus of the confederation, in the Protestant it is the infallibility of scriptures.

In stalemating the European kings ... the side effect was a solid wall in church separation.

With each form of infallibility � salvation is assured if one sticks to it, and it is assured that there is no-salvation if one defects from it ... it is exclusive (no other form allowed).

For an Orthodox � it is anathema to accept Papal infallibility for that denies the infallibility of the confederation.

For the Protestant it is anathema to deny scripture infallibility by accepting any other infallibility.

For the Roman Catholic it is anathema to accept anything other than the infallibility of the Pope.

Each is totally exclusive of the other ... under threat of damnation.

Now ... which would be the first to dis-arm their bomb?

No one.

Once created � it can not be disarmed ... else one risk the other side use theirs. One is defenseless against the other side if one does not have the bomb.

Also � it is in the very design of 'the bomb' that it can not be dis-armed. Else ... the one who dis-arms it must admit that he made the ultimate error of dogma and doctrine. Such an error would mean he could not be trusted for anything else either.

So - That ain't gonna happen. To try and dis-arm it will make it blow up in his lap and take his whole house down.

The ONLY thing that will possible work is an agreement � not to use the bomb. Each can then cooperate (within limits) but a separation must remain � the bomb can not be disarmed. That which was meant to keep internal union � does so by making external separation. Totally in or totally out.

Once created - the only defense against it - was to have your own bomb.

Just a comparison.
-ray

Now here is a comparison which will certainly get rocks thrown at me.

The incarnation of God into fleash gave birth to the church.

The incarnation of God into bread and wine gave the church universal unity.

But the incarnation of God into Infallibility (a card which trumps all else) be in one man (even if temporary incarnation), or one block (consensus among those in one group), or within scriptures (subject to varied interpretation) ... can only make division.

Once laid down (the infallibility card) there is no going back.

Indeed it is just this incarnation into into the 'infallible' which, by presenting to the world three competing incarnations of God (Orthodox, Roman, Protestant) ... that is mostly responsible for the shrinkage of Christianity as a whole.

In my analogy of 'the bomb' you can see why neither will give it up (it will explode taking down the house).

This means that the three forms of incarnation will remain. To the detriment of the entire Church (Christianity as a whole in the world).

Only something further (and I have no idea what that might be) could possibly become a focus to restore what unity the Eucharist had been before infallibility trumped it.

Quite possibly that could be scriptures. In which case all Christianity will continue to become more along Protestant lines in the future. The 'words' of the original incarnation.

But I do not know. Except that infallibility in it three forms - will remain.

I suppose that the Protestant 'infallibility' of scriptures includes a personal infallibility ... in a personal experience of the Holy Spirit. God incarnated into each man. I dunno.


Only unity in the heart of each Christian surmounts the divisions. A movement which crosses the great divides and does not fear the death threats imposed by sect infallibility.

To avoid the rocks thrown at me I will not be back for awhile.

Peace to you and to your church.
-ray

Ray, I'll stand back and I'll leave the the rock throwing to others. I will note that you paint everything in terms of black and white; the reality it is oh so much more complicated. Your analogy does seem weak to me on its major point: "This engender the Orthodox and Protestants to have their own 'bomb'. In the Orthodox it is the infallibility of the consensus of the confederation, in the Protestant it is the infallibility of scriptures." The confederation, as you call it, goes back as far as the council of Nicaea. Infallibility goes back to the late 19th century. You have created a very weak disjunct, in my judgment. THE EOC prizes age and tradition; it opts for Confederation. I have no problem with reunion as outlined by Bob. It gives Rome what it wants and Constantinople what it wants. I do think, as I said before, that neither side is ready to give ground. The issue is a human issue not a divine one, although both sides cloath it in rhetoric that smacks of the divine. In Rome power comes from the top (the Pope), in the east from below (the people). As I noted in a previous post, it will take a paradigm shift in the west. Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see if there will be another St. Mark of Ephesus.

Bob, well said. I think you have a good grasp of the situation.

Joe

I prefer the word communion over confederation, because the word confederation involves only a unity of purpose and agreement, while the theological term communion involves an ontological participation and interpenetration (perichoresis) of the many in the one. In other words, the one Catholic Church is made manifest in the many local Churches, and the many local Churches are the concrete actualization of the one Catholic Church.

The East-West divide is quite the conundrum, it bends the mind. I find myself looking at both systems and seeing the good and the right in each--and there are perils in each as well.

In the histories I have read biblical inerrancy and papal infallibility were reactions to rationalism. Conciliar infallibility has existed since Nicea or Jerusalem for that matter, as I understand it. The Enlightenment is a Western European and North American phenomenon, for the most part (it has not had the same impact in Latin America or Eastern European, Asian or African societies).

I am not sure this history undoes Ray's bomb analogy which is an expression of the real conundrum.

I think it is too early to tell how the conundrum will be resolved and think it best that a new united council do that work. Things happen in council that cant happen anywhere else. The Christological councils resolved a far more vexing and contentious conundrum than we have today. I doubt that the resolution to the Christological conundrums could have been worked out in any other venue; and if they had it would not have mattered for lack of legitimate authority.

I disagree on the need for a western paradigm shift. I think the solution, whatever it is (and known only to God), will require a paradigm shift on the part of everyone involved.

I think we have to resist zero-sum thinking and be open to new ways of imagining a future together. I think Bob is onto something, though it makes me uneasy in ways.

Perhaps we have to consider the papacy in truly universal terms and parity be achieved in the college of cardinals. Sure, there are problems with this, but part of the Eastern resistance to the papacy could be resolved by a Pope from the East.

Lets face it we are dealing with a problem that can ultimately be resolved only through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Juridically, East and West will only accept as authoritative a resolution which comes from a council approved by the Holy See.

Like Bob, I think we need to keep trying to think of ways to imagine an East West union where both sides are treated as equals, neither are "losers" and the organizational outcome is in keeping with scripture and tradition.

But, Father, the problem is that Rome has already decreed things (found in Vatican I) that Rome cannot retract and that Orthodoxy cannot accept.

Joe