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

Brother John,

What I had in mind here was your statement that:
This is why I have emphaisized the importance of doing some serious, critical historical research. The positions of both sides are based on a lot of historical suppositions, and while most of the adjustments will surely have to be on Rome's end, I don't think it will be entirely unilateral. Any real, serious union will have to be based on truth (as St. Mark recognized at Florence), and this will require a great deal of prayer, followed by a careful examination of the facts presented and finally, some serious self-examination.

In other words, in order for any side to modify a long-held teaching even slightly, there must be a real certainty that this is God's will--nothing less will do.

That is why I agree with a number of posters who have said that it has to begin with a new spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. This process has already begun, and there is reason to expect that it will continue. There is, however, still a lot of ground to cover.

Let us hope it will not be necessary to have a sole dissenter this time. The failure of the "Union of Florence" (or whaterver you want to call it) lies in two facts that are glaringly obvious from our historical perspective:

• The Eastern contingent was willing to compromise, since they were interested primarily in unity as a means to gain a military ally against a growing threat from the Ottoman Empire.
• The Western contingent was absolutely certain in their minds that they were completely right in every respect, and were not the least bit interested in gaining insight into the Eastern perspective, but only in giving an answer to the objections they had received.

I would also like to add that the question is not whether we have learned something from history--we've learned some things, but not nearly enough--but whether we can learn enough to avoid repeating some of the disasters of the past.

Peace,
Deacon Richard

Todd, I agree. Communion is the ancient theological conception of the Church's unity. Terms like confederation are from political science and describe organizational systems. Orthodoxy is more of a confederation in regard to its organizational structure. The Catholic Church which was more monarchically conceived since the medieval period but is probably more accurately described since Vatican II as a federal system.

Regarding the concept of "decentralization" mentioned earlier, this is not a term used in Catholic ecclesiology, though it is not far off. The proper term is subsidiarity.

The principle of subsidiarity is simple: governance should take place at the lowest level of authority practicable. For example, it would be wrong for each US diocese to have its own liturgical translations. But Rome is too distant from American experience to know how phrasing sounds in the US. The USCCB then approves a translation and sends it to Rome. Rome checks the translation only for its theological correspondence with the rest of the universal church. Other example: American has various regional cultures. The pace of life varies widely. So the observance of holy days is governed by provinces, not nationally, not by diocese as diocesan boundaries often cut through metropolitan areas. Subsidiarity.

If anyone hasn't read Ratzinger's 1992 document on the Church as Communion, it is a must read for anyone on this forum (and its not too long):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

For more on subsidiarity see the Wikipedia article. This Catholic principle which has its origin in Catholic Social Teaching has now become a concept in secular political science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Joe, this is my point. It is a conundrum. But so was the humanity and divinity of Christ. The Vatican has already said that the papacy was discussable. If we believe that the Church through the episcopate is endowed with the Holy Spirit, then this "problem without a solution" indeed does have a solution, though unknown to us at the moment.

Is God Sovereign or not? Will he accomplish his will through the Church despite human weakness and sin, or not? Does God perform miracles, or not? Is God greater than this particular set of problems, or not.

If not, then all Christian faith is a lie and should be condemned.

The mystery of the Church is the mystery of Christ himself as we are his body. This is not just zero sum mathematics here. It is about divine which is beyond all human understanding. We have to change our thinking here and get out of the way of the divine. As I have said many times. The problem is hermeneutic in nature, really.

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

JOE:

Many thanks for your confirmation of what I have been trying to understand concerning Orthodox life and practice.

That being said, I don't have the answer of how to reconcile the two ecclesiastical worldviews.

FATHER J:




Again, I agree with you 100%. God will accomplish this re-establishment of communion in His own good time. I do firmly believe that, just as I believe that He will get around to wearing the rough edges off me so I'll be ready to meet Him Face to face.

In Christ,

BOB

Perhaps that is the proper term in Latin Catholic theory, but it is not the proper term in Eastern Christian theology.

In the Eastern tradition each local Church is seen as the full and complete realization of the one Catholic Church, and the communion of the local Churches is manifest through the profession of the Orthodox faith and the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy, and not through a concept of hierarchical unity with a central authority (i.e., a particular Episcopal See). As a consequence, no single Church (or bishop) can be seen as ontologically or sacramentally superior to any other Church (or bishop). Moreover, in the East authority is not thought of as a power over others, but as a service in love and communion. Secular ideas of political import have no place in ecclesiology.

It is important to remember that God's oneness is not destroyed by His tri-hypostatic existence, and similarly the unity of the Church does not negate the multiplicity of the local Churches. In fact, the unity of the Church is only made manifest through the multiplicity of Churches, just as the revelation of God in creation is only experienced through the multiplicity of His uncreated energies and the triad of divine hypostaseis.

Apotheoun,

Does the unity of Churches make communion? In other words, is communion merely the sum of local churches.

[Rhetorical question]

Time for the dog in the manager to jump in!


Father John notes,"Juridically, East and West will only accept as authoritative a resolution which comes from a council approved by the Holy See."

A joint council could be called by Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Moscow, Antioch, or Jerusalem. It is not the Holy See's prerogative in the eyes of the east. If one looks at the first seven councils, most of them were convened by Byzantine emperors and papal presence was marginal at best (a representative). A resolution could come out of a council and it would not need to be signed off on by any one bishop to become the law of the land because the Bishop of Rome would be one bishop among many as would be the case of the EP, the MP, the AntP, and the AlexP. I am now going to head for my bunker as a barrage of stones heads in my direction.

No. Communion is inherent to each local Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith and the celebration of the Eucharist, and this unity is a gift of grace, i.e., it is a participation in the unity of the tri-personal God.

That said, anything that makes it sound like you can add up all the local Churches and get the universal Church must be avoided, because -- as I have said above -- the unity of the Church is a participation in the unity of the Godhead.

I don't see what the stones would be for, you're right. Look at Constantinople I - i.e the II Ecumenical Council.

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


johnzonaras:

I've taken the time to reread this entire thread and don't find this quote by Father John. Would you be kind enough to help me find it?

To the whole group:

We are skating rather close to the kind of argumentative discourse that is uncharitable. The thread asks what it would "take" to bring about reunion of the Churches. While some good discussion has taken place and the exploration of both sides' positions has lead to a better understanding of where we are currently, this is not the place to begin down the road that has lead to hardened postions in the past. If the whole project comes down to an argument over who can or cannot call together the worlds' Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox bishops to pray and find the solution to the disunity scandal that we all admit the world sees, then we are in serious trouble. As Father John has mentioned, we have to allow room for the Holy Spirit to work and that involves serious , humble, open prayer on all sides. Praying for the Holy Spirit to convert the "other" is not the kind of prayer that will bring about what Jesus wills. And remember that He always said He came not to do His own will, but the Will of the One Who sent Him. We ought to pause and tremble when we think about this in light of the question posed.

For myself, I've got enough things to answer for when I face the Lord one-on-one, and I don't want to have "obstacle to the unity of My Church" or "adding to historical enmity" to be any of them.

Let's remember the cardinal rule of this forum: charity. If we need to back off and think about where each side is, it may be the time for everyone take a break from this topic. Otherwise this thread will be locked if it continues to show signs of the knives coming out.

In Christ,

BOB

The biggest obstacle to reunion is the understanding of the papacy defined by Vatican I. So, one thing that it will definitely take to achieve reunion is a working through of these definitions (Vatican I) and either repudiating them (which doesn't seem possible) or reworking them so that they are compatible with both Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology. I think that this is a rather arduous task but since the next round of theological talks is supposed to focus on the Petrine ministry, we might see something suggested that would be a path forward.

Joe

I was not saying what the contents of an East West council might be. I only know for sure, I wont be there. I dont think it even matters exactly how it is called. What I AM saying is that a new council will have to be legitimate in the eyes of both the East and the West according to our present understandings--even if our present understandings are significantly changed by the new council. In other words if the universal council is accepted by the East as a universal council and by the West by way of papal approval, it would be seen as legitimate.

Again, I am not making presumptions about what the outcome of such a council would be.

If the East needs for such a council to be called by the 5 Patriarchs, so be it. Whatever it takes for a council be legitimate in the eyes of all.

I didnt know that there was a mandate to decentralize, given at Vat II
Stephanos I

Joe, I completely agree.

One thing that needs to be discussed is how Vat. I is understood in the Catholic Church. I dont think it is well understood generally except as a caricature of the teaching.

First, the locus of infallibility is not the pope himself but in the Church in general. Infallibility is a gift to the church as a whole, including the faithful. The Church collectively gives voice to its teaching through the episcopate. The Episcopate together with the pope speak infallibly when they intend to do so whether in a council or through the pope himself when he is speaking for the universal episcopate.

It is important to understand the historical context of Vat. I. There are two major concerns. First, it is a response to rationalism, that is the belief that human reason will irradicate religion. Or that human reason is a higher authority than religion on moral and other issues. As the scriptures and tradition of the Church themselves were being subjected the scrutiny of modern bibilical and historical criticism, there was a fear that religious beliefs might unravel entirely (as has occurred in Western Europe!).

The second backdrop of Vatican I is the war on the papal states then occurring. Papal infallibility which is really the infallibility of the church spoken through the organ of the papacy was a response to the fear that no ecumenical council might be possible to convene if the Church is under military attack.

So, the papacy was defined as one organ of the general infallibility of the Church normally voiced in councils. The language of Vatican I envisions a polling of the global episcopate (and in both cases this took place, at least among the Catholic bishops). It also leave open some unspecified means.

Some important quotes:





As for the "not by consent of the Church" clause, I would be very interested to know how Easterners understand this.

To what extent does an ecumenical council require the consent of the Church. Is there a mechanism of reception? Was Nicea not considered a real council until many generations thereafter? This seems problematic to me, but it is something I dont know very much about.

At least in Catholic terms, I am not sure we take consent beyond the episcopate. If the bishops agree, then it is authoritative. I dont think we question an ecumenical council's validity or authority as all the bishops have already taken a vote therein.