www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West unity of Catholic and Orthodox Churches is urgent

You got a point ... I used to feel the same way ... however ... unity through necessity is a start. It is at least a level of unity which will open the door to a genuine unity.

Some times 'second best' is 'good enough'

-ray

This might work. The Vatican is top-down but ... I know that occasionally if I have a good idea at work I have to present it to my boss and then wait a period until he gives it back to me as if he himself thought of it. And then I praise him for his great idea

And so such an idea of laity asking for a Council - would not go entirely null.

Let's do it!!


(I am going entirely nuts !!! LETS DO SOMETHING!!!)

Seize the day!
Do not be afraid!
Damn the torpedoes!
Full speed ahead!
Victory belongs to the brave!
Into the breach!
(I am running out of quotes)
Raise the flag! (huh?)

-ray

I remember that, several years ago, I had this small booklet of prayers to say. The prayers were for unity between East and West. On the left page was a picture kind of a combination of Latin art and Byzantine art .. and on the right side was a short prayer (maybe three paragraphs) to say and the wording was a nice combination of Latin and Orthodox concepts.

I forget where I go it - but I sad that booklet for years.

Even if we just published a nice prayer card that laity could say each night ... that would be something.

On the other had we could storm the Vatican and Moscow!!! and kill anyone who stands in our way!! (no ,, maybe not).

Ideas?
ideas?
ideas?

-ray

While some awful things were done to the Byzantines by the west, the fall of Constantinople did not happen solely because "the Catholic West refused to support that Orthodox city unless the schismatics repented and came home to Rome."

History is more complicated than polemic. The failure of the crusades and the war in Eastern Europe against the Turks were deciding factors in many cases. The Hungarians, Poles, Venetians and Genoese took a beating at Varna in 1444 that left many disillusioned and morale at an all time low. The West was still reeling from the losses and did not like the idea of sending more armies to be slaughtered in 1453.

As for the religion issue, I think that the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople had entered nto re-union with Rome the year before. Thus, the Genoese and Venetians did come to the aid of the Greeks. However, before this there was hostility on both sides.

The classic account is by the English Protestant historian Steven Runciman The Fall of Constantinople, 1453.

I think it's urgent, but no less urgent than the day the churches themselves divided. Unity and fraternal love are imperatives for a Christian life. So the urgency is not because of the external factors or pressures (though they are important), unity is simply an internal imperative in my estimation to the body of Christ.

When the Catholic and Orthodox churches can mutually recognize the Roman See as the first among apostolic churches, and the elder brother among those churches (and I realize those are loaded terms with all kinds of implications), then I think the unity will simply happen.

I don't think unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is urgent. I don't even think it is even currently desirable.

There are many differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, but the chief difference is about the papacy. Everything else can either be worked out theologically (even the filioque) or it can excused as applying to regional / local parts of the Church. But the Bishop of Rome claims to be the supreme earthly authority of the Church with universal jurisdiction. I don't see the Catholic Church giving up n that or watering that down, and I don't see the Orthodox Church accepting that.

So, as a practical matter, I think it is far more urgent that the two churches learn how to respect each other, and to get along, and to work together to spread the Gospel, and to work together to combat the common evils of the day -- than to work for something which neither side is willing to yield on.

My two cents.

-- John

P.S., dare I say it, the two Churches have become . . . two different churches. They (we) are different. We experience the Gospel differently. We understand it differently. We even have different original liturgical languages. Etc. Yes, we have the same common heritage of apostolic succession and sacraments and so on. But, we have grown apart and into our own identities as Churches. We are like fraternal twins who have become increasingly different as time goes by. That's because we started with different personalities, and then we grew up in different circumstances, and we have matured into two different entities -- especially after 1000 years of schism. Maybe we should just recognize this fact as fact, give each other our blessings, try to get along with each other, and move on.

-- John

I do think unity is urgent. I believe so because of St. Paul's comments to the Corinthians about factions, and because of Christ's prayer for the unity of his followers recorded in the Gospel of John. I believe that the dis-unity of Christians is something that is not pleasing to our Lord.

On the other hand, I try not to be unrealistic. I do not believe that achieving visible unity should be something that is coerced or artificial-such would not be a true unity. I suppose I follow the thoughts of my teacher, Geoffrey Wainwright, who has devoted his talents and energies to the ecumenical movement-unity, not unlike holiness, is something for which the Gospel compels us to strive; however, because of the reality of the sinfulness of us all, we may not see reunification of the Churches in our lifetime.

Ryan

My personal feeling is 'what is impossible with man, is possible with God'!

So let's keep on genuinely praying, and you *n e v e r* know how God may bring it so that this miracle will take place--according to when and how He wills it!

I think the key in the prayer for spiritual unity of these 'sisters' who have grown up in different cultures is to be genuine...because in my humble opinion, I think that --atleast in my experience--the part in the Divine Liturgy's litany that says 'for the unity of the faith', is often said as rote. I humbly think that what is needed to really lift this prayer up to God to hear and answer, is for us, clergy and laity alike, to not think about that unity with our minds, our intellect, our wills, or our egos, (for often this gets in the way of a heartfelt prayer). Instead, we should all strive to pray this prayer with a pure heart and mind, leaving the details to God's Holy Spirit..

Besides the litany, everytime the Creed is recited, where it is said 'in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church', where many faithful cross themselves as if we Orthodox are that one Church, instead I cross myself and look at the icon of the Theotokos infront of me in the Apse and I pray 'may it be so'.

Often times, since the historic meeting of Pope Benedict w/Patriarch Bartholomew, I also like to visualize ( I have what is called a 'photographic memory' anyway) that scene of them smiling and holding each other's hands in the air...

In Christ, the unity which we already have,
Alice

Dear Alice,

Well, I have to agree with you on THIS one issue and fully support you with respect to THIS one matter . . .

Alex

Amen !

And well said, Alice. There is much food for thought and reflection there.

-- John

John,

I'm not quite sure what you mean here by "moving on." If you're talking about doing away with some of the quibbling and "one-upmanship" that is frequently seen in this forum, that might be a good thing. I would point out, however, that friends often talk in a similar manner, and that it can be seen as part of getting to know each other and growing in mutual respect.

While I certainly agree that all these things are good and necessary, I don't see that it follows that we need to abandon the dialogues--official or unofficial--in order to do that.

My opinion is that a better definition of "supreme authority," along with some captitulation on the "universal jurisdiction" part will be a major stride in resolving this issue. The key is for the delegations on both sides to bring as much real, historical documentation to the table as possible, so that it can be evaluated in a spirit of earnest desire to find the truth. Neither side should have any reason to want to avoid or obscure the truth.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Just when we were having so much fun in debating .. someone has to come along and make a lot of sense!

Thank you Alice ... now every time I too hear the phrase I will also say that in my heart.

May it be so.

-ray

I heard today that the word 'orthodox' comes from two Greek words that mean 'my opinion' and the word 'heterodox' means 'anyone else's opinion'. It was humor (of course) but somewhat accurate I think.

(it was not a reflection upon the Orthodox church - just on the word).

I notice that the original meaning was 'right opinion' ... as opposed to a modern usage more to the meaning of 'infallible truth'. I wonder if that is significant?

That the early fathers chose the word 'opinion' when they very well could have selected something more solid like ... 'infallible and irrevocable and not-reformable absolute truth'. But I suppose all squashed into one word might make that a contraction very hard to pronounce.

There is also the opinion of some scholars that both Peter and Paul were murdered out of jealousy - that is: betrayed over to the Roman's {Letter of Clement: "By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even until death."} by fellow Christians who wanted each out of the way in order to take over thier authority. It was, after all, a time in which intrigue and murder were common pratices amoung royal families. Judas was an apostle too so that would not be new to Christianity.

Thanks for letting my mind wander

The problems is ... the very early church seems to have been nothing more than a loose confederation of 'churches' in local homes ... that were more like charismatic meetings. Outside of the original apostles ... no hierarchy existed (as later developed). Paul himself did not become an apostle by being apointed by an orginal apostle. Paul was appointed by a vision. I doubt that an appointment by vision would be recognized as legit today. Things change.

Another example would be Paul's letters to the Corinthians: it was addressed to the Corinthians (the entire community) and not to the leaders of the church at Corinth. In other words Paul's letters did not say "Dear Bishop so-and-so ... your people are out of hand. Please correct the situation." and this leads some to think that ... there was no hierarchy as later developed. Paul does give us the structure of a local church ... which hierarchy (after apostle) is according to a hierarchy of charismatic gifts. I do not think bishops of today would agree to running local churches by a hierarchy of charismatic gifts.

It was not unheard of for a local church (its members) to toss out its lears (for just about any reason) and appoint others in place. All you had to do was meet at someone else's house. That too changed in later developments when tossing out leaders was restricted to tossing out only leaders who had proven ill-repute. Today's Orthodox church retains something of that when bishops can be shunned (to retire) by laity and other Orthodox churches.

So many of these later developments simply have no occasion in the New Testament.

What I am getting at ... is that any documents proving some particular 'truth' of early church structure ... would necessarily be relative. We can always find something earlier which make the stance ambiguous (a matter of interpretation and opinion).

As regards Peters ... it seems to me that both current positions (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) regarding what role Peter had in the early church ... are both modern myths ... and forced projections back onto a past in which (in reality) neither existed. Both myths prejudice a fully developed hierarchy which actually had not yet existed. That is probably the main reason why any scriptural evidence put forth to support either myth - always turns out circumstantial and ultimately dependent upon which ever myth one assumes to be true.

That past (the apostolic age) will forever be in a fog that we can not well penetrate in order to have our 'infallible and irrevocable and not-reformable absolute truth'. We want what we can not have.

So it seems to me that the word 'right opinion' was really a wise selection of words after all. A 'right opinion' if it means an opinion to rally around ... offers unity without the dangers of 'infallibility' that reduce Christianity into laws cast in cold stone which refuse any further insights.

Good grief!
I am sounding so Orthodox!
Well ... not even.
Maybe next week I will start becoming Coptic!

Christian for sale or let ... rooms to rent $0.50 cents .. I am a man of means by no means .. king of the road.



Peace to all churches.
-ray

If you dont see it as urgent and even as desirable maybe you should seek the mind of Christ on that issue. Paying particular attention to Jesus prayer in the gospel of John 17
Stephanos I