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

We would/should be what we are now, only properly and fully so regarding our liturgical life and traditional disciplines and practices. We would be a metropolitan sui iuris church, a particular communion of four particular churches.

Why no "purpose", why "no longer exists"? Our purpose is for each church to be a Catholic church that celebrates the Eucharist with its bishop thereby being a light to the world and an instrument of salvation. We do this presently as a naturally established communion of four particular churches in communion with the church of Rome.

We have the marks of a true church: one, holy, catholic, apostolic.

We have mission and vision.

Our mission:

Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. — Mark 16:15

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. — Matthew 28:19-20

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. — 1Corinthians 11:23-26

Our vision:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God's dwelling is with Mankind. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, (for) the old order has passed away.” The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” — Revelation 21:1-5a

Why should something so wonderful be deemed not to have purpose and that it should cease to exist? We are not an ecclesial appendix but a church.

[CDL: Just to be clear, though I am responding to you, my remarks should not be read as being against you. I understand and appreciate the legitimacy of your question and conclusion in the present situation. My remarks are not a critique of you but of the situation.]

AJK,

I'm not sure what I would do if we were seriously no longer a bridge between East and West and East and West were still fighting each other. It would be a serious blow. I can do all of those things through our domestic Church. I don't need an organization that would have given up on Jesus' High Priestly prayer.

Unless I fully misunderstand Balamand I see it as an affront not only to the Eastern Catholic Churches but an affront to Christ Himself.

CDL

I'm sorry, I'm not following this. What is the "organization" that is giving "up on Jesus' High Priestly prayer"?

What is the "it" that is "an affront"?

I took, at least based upon the structure of the sentence as it stands, the "it" to be the Balamand Agreement.

I do not think that anyone (Orthodox or Catholic) has given up on Christ's high priestly prayer, but I do think that it is interpreted somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholics (at least modern Catholics).

The Eastern Orthodox Churches hold that the one Church is indivisible by her very nature, and so heretics are not really members of the Church. Now, I think it is probably also true that the Orthodox Churches pray that the various heretical groups rejoin the one Church, but in saying these kinds of prayers Orthodox believers are not saying that the Church is somehow divided or rent asunder at the present moment, and that the unity of the Church must be "restored" (as if it could somehow be lost); instead, they are calling heretics, who by their heresy are not longer true Christians, back to the unity of the Church, which can never be lost by the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church because it is a oneness founded upon the unity of the Holy Trinity.

Catholics, prior to the Second Vatican Council, shared a similar viewpoint as far as heretics are concerned, but during the council a slight modification in Catholic teaching was made that – although not denying that the unity of the Church subsists in the Catholic Church as something that she cannot lose – allowed Catholics to speak of other ecclesial bodies as having grace, even if only imperfectly. In other words, the Catholic Church reformulated her position in a slightly more positive manner at Vatican II; while not denying that the one Church continues to exist in its fullness in the Catholic Church alone.

Neither of the two approaches, with the Orthodox approach being the more traditional, can be said to allow for the idea that the one Church is divided. In fact, to say that the one Church is divided into parts is – in some sense – to admit that the one Church of Christ does not exist anymore, and neither the Orthodox Churches nor the Catholic Church can say that without embracing something that the ancient Fathers would see as heretical.

Seems rather insane.

CDL

What is the foundation of the unity of the Church? Where does the Church's unity come from?

CDL,

By the way, although I spoke in an earlier post of the Eastern Catholic Churches as a "bridge" between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, I do not believe that that is what they should be; instead, they should simply be fully Byzantine Orthodox (i.e, they should de-Latinize their theology, spirituality, and liturgy), while remaining in communion with Rome.

I don't think this has happened in recent history. Even the sedevacantists further out than the SSPX will not rebaptize the Orthodox. When the UAOC bishop joined Bishop Pivarunas [who is certainly harder line than any SSPX bishop] briefly he was only received by confession and Holy Communion.

Carson,

I assume here you are referring to the Balamand Statement's rejection of "uniatism" as a failed policy.

What I understand this to mean is not so much the original concept of the unia, as set forth in such documents as the Union of Brest, but the general assumption that has been unofficially held by both sides, that sees the ECCs as primarily and fundamentally a tool to draw the EOs back into communion with Rome.

I think most of us would agree that the latter qualifies as a "failed policy."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I can't believe some of the comments I've heard here. My UGCC parish exists so that people may come togather and worship God, that's it's purpose first and foremost. No one I know is going through a "Who and what am I" spiritual identity crisis either. And if the Catholic and Orthodox churches never come to reunion, I trust they'll just keep worshipping as they have.

Any formula of reunion would certainly deny or downplay the ecumenical natures of any councils during the schism. Also, I can't conceive of there *not* being a council to deal with reconciliation. Such a council would no doubt "refine" or explain the notion in such a way that is consistent with both East & West (Papal publication after agreement by all synods?).

hawk

From there,