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

<<My general impression is the E Orthodox tend to maximise the differences between Orthodox and Catholic, and generally, they do not appreciate the relative insignificance as seen from the Orthodox point of view.>>

I state the above to show that these kinds of observations work both ways. Two can play this game.

So, now my question is how does this kind of generalization assist us in comming together? If the will of the Lord is that we be united, then how is this kind of comment productive?

Seems to me if we are engaging in dialogue it would be good for us to try and state points of view in couplets, recognizing the converse of our opinions is also true.

If Catholics minimize differences, it is just as true that Orthodox maximize differences. Which position most serves the will that we be one as the Father and the Son are one?

Again, as I have said before. Union will follow conversion and the kind of love for each other that Christ himself has for us.

Fr. J.

Father,

I think that this means that we cannot reduce the schism to be a product of purely political factors and that such issues such as the filioque cannot be dismissed or minimized by saying that the problem is merely linguistic. I think it also means that the question is not how the papacy should be exercised today. The question is the nature of the papacy itself. Roman Catholic representatives need to understand that it is not enough to hold on to the theological development of the papacy in the Western Church while suggesting that the solution lies only in coming to a new understanding of how the papacy should work in practice today. Unless there is agreement on the fundamental nature of the papacy, there can be no reunion.

Joe

Bless, Father Steele!

Yes, your point that one does not need a pope to have someone with a "papal attitude" is more than correct.

I've met both EC and Orthodox priests whose autocratic attitudes far outstrip the most authoritarian medieval pope!

Alex

I haven't detected that, but everyone's perception is their own as has been said many times recently. Even then, the idea that one's generosity is not matched is really something that should best be left observed and not said. It will simply stand on its own merits, and to say "I'm more generous than you are" reads a lot like "why can't everybody be as humble as I am". It just doesn't come across right.


A Protestant pastor can be a Pope to a room of 20. Any human can be obstinate, instransigent or disagreeable. All of those have nothing to do with the issue of the theological underpinnings of the Papacy.


Everyone should simply look for the beam in their own eye before looking for the mote in another's.

Alex,

I see you have responded to my last post. I just deleted it as it was perhaps a bit intemperate.

I am glad, though, that you saw something of value in my comments.

Fr. J.

The principle problem here is that this is an online forum where we can't pick up on each other's body language. Also, there is no beer over which we can discuss these things.

Joe

Dear Father J.,

I read your last post, and as an Orthodox Christian from birth, I feel secure enough to say that I agree with many of your points. I did not feel that those points were contentious or intemperate, but thank you anyway for your magnanimous restraint and humility.

Asking for your blessing,
Alice

AMM,

I see that you have replied to my deleted comment. I regret that.

The comment was written to share my frustrations. Your reply shows you have misread that intention and has only added to the frustrations expressed.



Fr. J.

Father, if I have surmised correctly, I believe you are saying that

- There is an unlevel playing field, or uneven set of working standards, in the discussions that you have observed; i.e. some things apply to some people that don't to others.
- You feel that a degree of openness and generosity has been displayed by Catholics that is not matched by others.

I hope I read what you are saying correctly.

Amen to all of the above, Father.

God bless,

Gordo

Pride and politics are certainly involved on both sides. All I am saying is that the theological issues are real and serious.

Joe

Neither, and it's irrespective of which side is doing which of those. Both are distortions of the objective reality of the situation, and by distorting the situation, one hinders the possibility that it will be successfully resolved; and in ways that one might not always expect.

Based on the just concluded 10th Plenary Meeting of the JIC in Ravenna, Italy (and in an unpublicised way during its 9th Plenary Meeting in Belgrade), your statement is an indictment equally served on the Catholic panel. Which is not true!

The ostensible rift between the Russian Church, acting alone, and the EP has become public and Church pride and politics thus rear their ugly heads.

I confess that I am not exactly sure of what you are saying.

Joe

Bless, Father Steele!

Thank you for your sensitivity and, truth be told, I no longer regularly post on the Forum due to what I know to be my intemperate nature (old age, onslaught of diabetes, Ukrainian character - you choose! ;)).

Historically, and in contemporary times, I think we Catholics have not been as sympathetic to the Orthodox (and the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" - too old style Greek Catholic for that myself) as we should be.

It is perhaps a telling insight into our Catholic tendency toward a "spiritual rationalism" when we look at the differences between Catholics and Orthodox and try to reduce their significance in various ways.

It makes for fun intellectual calisthenics and then leads some of us to say to Orthodox, "Oh come on now, guys - things aren't as bad as all that!"

You and I don't believe they are. When Pope Paul VI once commented that when it comes to Catholics and Orthodox "unity is almost complete" - that was completely rejected by Orthodox and by Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff at the time.

We might ponder how, since Vatican II and all the talk about "separated brethren" and others who "in a number known only to God" can attain salvation etc., we have sometimes played down the theological significance of what others see as vitally important to church unity.

I have in my possession a published PhD dissertation by a Catholic priest who specializes in Reformation theology ("Luther Right or Wrong?" - I would bend down here to get his name off my shelf, but I currently have a needle in my arm that would make even that little exercise quite uncomfortable).

One of his conclusions is that the difference on the subject of justification, depending on how one sees it, is not sufficient to justify the separation of churches. So, from his perspective, one may have a difference and yet it is not sufficient to justify separation.

Our poster Todd (Apotheoun) is someone I really and truly admire. I too find it difficult to understand his overall position, but that doesn't take away my admiration for him and his scholarship.

He brings to the fore the apparent "contradictions" inherent in our current EC position (that is generally that of most of our hierarchy, priests etc.) with respect to being as Eastern as possible but also in communion with Rome.

And Rome affirms that that is precisely our EC calling - to do and be just that.

However, when someone like Todd actually takes that seriously . . . well, now you know the rest of the story.

What does that really mean for us EC's? Those EC's who reject the Filioque do so for more than "Eastern liturgical aesthetic" reasons. There is a theology in which the Filioque is imbedded that is also being rejected, whether we EC's and RC's like to admit it or not.

Although St John Damascus is a saint for all, he himself rejected the Filioque in his "De Fide Orthodoxa" as you know much better than I. And St Thomas Aquinas took the Damascene to task for that in his explication of the Filioque - as you know as well.

From an "ecumenical" point of view, would it be so bad if both Catholics and Orthodox agree to disagree on the Filioque and leave it as a theological opinion for the West (and out of the common Creed)?

Is the Filioque heretical? From the standpoint of Byzantine theology - well, yes.

We EC's can massage it all we like, even going so far as saying the phrase "Through the Son" means the "same thing" as Aquinas himself affirmed.

In fact, Aquinas misread the intent of the Orthodox East on this matter and so did the participants at Florence when they approved a union based on that flawed misunderstanding.

For the East, "through the Son" refers only to the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world. In fact, from the point of view of the temporal mission alone, the Orthodox readily agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and from the Son!" (This is the so-called "Orthodox Filioque").

Why can't we leave it at that and count our blessings of the unity we already share?

If the Orthodox are strident toward us, is it not because we have provoked them into being this way? I'm asking, not telling.

I would suggest that if we feel frustrated at this, it is PERHAPS because we Catholics have come to treat our standard of orthodoxy as THE standard. I know I have.

I've no doubt that both Catholics and Orthodox are right. I've no doubt that we can both agree on a core of faith that we once shared and leave the rest to theological opinion.

Theological opinion is fun, after all, wouldn't you say? We can have endless conversations about our views without ever having to be called "heretics" for so doing.

(I've a tremendous love for your Order, Reverend Father and love your Order's habit and mission.)

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing, Reverend Father,

Your servant,

Alex