www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Re-establishing communion between east and west and the Slavic EC

By — gently, pastorally, discreetly, of course — doing what Rome says and externally being Orthodox in communion with Rome (OicwR). Not at all controversial on this board!

Keeping doing what they've been doing for decades by not trying to convert individual Orthodox (while accepting such conversions because logically doctrine insists upon it — but quietly).

Being honest about what Rome teaches and the requirement that Greek Catholics accept all of it. (Something the OicwR need to work on.)

Support Pope Benedict's conservative revival in the Roman Rite. (Hint: Western Rite Orthodoxy deliberately looks like it and not 1970s Novus Ordo. That's what a reunited church would look like.)

We've discussed this "gorilla in the room" several times before and it. along with the fragmentation of Orthodoxy, the biggest obstacle of all. What is to be done with Papal Infallibility?

CDL

Young fogey...please explain...by "accept all of it" do you mean agree with everything or simply the belief that east and west are speaking different languages and underlying it all is a common faith, although some specifics may differ??? Essentially to say there are semantical differences and the other is not heretical.

The phrase "accept all of it" normally means – at least at most Catholic fora I have visited – that Eastern Catholics must accept all the developments that have taken place during the second millennium in Latin theology, even if those developments do not coordinate well with the Byzantine tradition.

cdl, yes, the scope of the Pope is the only real difference separating two Catholic [home.comcast.net] churches each of course claiming to be the one true one and claiming infallibility [infallibility.sub-page.com]. It's seemingly insurmountable. Divinely instituted with universal jurisdiction and a specific application of the charism of infallibility... or perfectly good man-made rank of the divinely instituted episcopate for the good order of the church, like the patriarch of Moscow?

How fragmented is Orthodoxy really? I see a family of churches with a shared set of strong core doctrines, a range of opinions and, remarkably, relatively uniform practice, in a loose communion not much to do with each other but they don't need to be. (The Anglican Communion is a much more recent poor imitation of this ecclesiology.) And some splinter groups on the edges (Old Calendarist churches out of communion with Orthodoxy) rather like the sedevacantists are to Rome.

What Apotheoun said. By all of it I mean just that.

I thought that was the case.

Because if the OicwR try to please the Orthodox by engaging in wishful thinking and not being honest about Rome's requirements it only pushes the two sides apart, because it (Rome saying one thing and the OicwR another) makes it look like Rome and the Greek Catholics are lying, living down to many Orthodox' fears that Rome is trying to deceive them.

This was undoubtedly the case prior to 1965.

Since then, Rome has been much more ambiguous. The prevalent idea that I've seen among my fellow Roman Catholics is that since Eastern theology (be it Byzantine, Syriac or Alexandrine) and Roman Catholic theology are totally compatible and non-contradictory, then Eastern Catholics should adopt the content of Latin theology -- as this content is considered as binding on all Catholics -- whilst seeking to express it in an Eastern language.

Is this actually possible? Rome says yes. The Orthodox say no. And Eastern Catholics are apparently divided on the matter.

In the final analysis, the real question is: do the Eastern and Western traditions of liturgy, spirituality and discipline stand for two different theological traditions in Christianity (with one being "right" and the other having elements of doctrinal error), or are they ultimately expressions of but the one and the same theological tradition? The former position seems to be the Orthodox and Catholic Traditionalist position, while the latter is the official position of Rome and of "liberal" and "neo-conservative" Catholics.

I don't see the change from before 1965. No doctrine was defined that year. What you're describing is how Rome has always wanted the Greek Catholics and ultimately the Orthodox to be.

Eastern and RC theology are compatible. But are Eastern and RC ecclesiology? Back to the scope of the Pope.


Correct.


But they're still required to accept all of RC theology and ecclesiology.

If you believe it can be done including in 'Easternese', be Greek Catholic. If not, be Orthodox.

Also, being generous to OicwR, I'd say Eastern Catholics are about 80/20 'yes, all of it'/'no, we're OicwR'.

Most Greek Catholics don't have a spiritual identity crisis. They're under Rome and that's that.

If Rome's position is the Latin position, then there is no point in even talking. Orthodoxy irrefutably rejects the aforementioned as error. Orthodoxy will have naught to do with theological error masked in Eastern terminology.

Alexandr

Well, there's almost always a point in talking ('Oh, so you don't really believe in a Quaternity or that the Pope is perfect, or that he can invent new doctrine going against old doctrine?') but I think many agree the issue of the scope of the Pope is insurmountable; the Orthodox won't budge exactly as you say and neither will Rome. The only solution seems to be for one side to give in and thus stop being what it is.

In this, we are in agreement. Orthodoxy will not surrender it's position, and it appears that neither will Rome. So why waste time, effort and resources discussing it? We should put an end to the nonsensical exercise in intellectual futility, otherwise known as ecumenism, and devote our efforts towards crushing our common enemies, humanism and the Hagarenes.

Alexandr

How if both see the other as the even more dangerous enemy?

Asianpilgrim,

I agree with your assessment except for giving it an actual date.

CDL

My understanding of the thoughts of writers such as Joseph Ratzinger on the matter, is that the East is not so much required to accept RC theology and ecclesiology, as it is being invited to see the developments in Roman Catholicism as being already implicit in the Eastern tradition and as being totally compatible with it.

Put in another way, Rome does not see Orthodoxy as heretical anymore, and simply asks the Orthodox not to consider her theology and ecclesiology as heretical (which still means acceptance of some form of papal primacy as being legitimate). Of course, the SSPX and most Trad Catholics still see the Orthodox as heretics as well as schismatics.

Of course, for the Orthodox, this is still seen as a call to submission or conversion, only couched in more polite terms.

John 17:21 that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.