www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reconciliation and Reunion

All,

It's been a while since we've had a "reunion" thread running here on ByzCath. Our brother Sielos' comments on another thread got me thinking:
I just wanted to share some of my reflections on the subject, many of which have been influenced by our discussions on this forum.

To begin with, let us not forget that true ecumenism does not mean seeking a "watered-down" statement of faith that might somehow be mutually palatable. Rather, it means seeking a better understanding of our own spiritual heritage, and sharing that with those with whom we seek reunion. It also means developing a thick skin, since the wounds of separation are still raw, even after many centuries, and we can expect to hear some hurtful words from members of other Churches, even if unintentional (we also need to be on guard against giving any). Finally, it means resisting the temptation to spiritual indifference, since once we awaken to the historical facts that "our" Church's actions haven't always been the most charitable and edifying, it can become difficult to go on believing in that--or any other--Church.

The path to reunion begins with a solid conviction of what our brother Sielos says above: "GOD HIMSELF is on the side of reconciliation and reunion." For Catholics, this isn't so hard to accept since we have not only the teachings of V-II, but the numerous exhortations of Popes JP-II and B-XVI. These lend considerable weight to this belief, even though it's still not a matter of faith that must be accepted by all. For the Orthodox this isn't so simple, since not only are they much more tradition-oriented (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also none of their patriarchs claims the same authority as the Pope of Rome. Still, there is a significant leaning towards reunion within the EOC (how significant? That's another thing we can discuss).

Finally, I would like to focus the discussion around the premise that all of our visible divisions have sin as their origin, since sin divides man within himself and makes unity with others impossible without the aid of divine grace.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

Who said the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was divided.
Chad

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2nd Thess)

The Church by its very nature cannot be divided, it is us mortals that fall into the trap of division.
Stephanos I

Chad,

OK, let's talk about tradition, a very important concept in Christianity. Because of the nature of the Church, in which God dwells among men, Christian tradition always has a human element (i.e. our manner of expressing divine truth) as well as a divine one (i.e. the divine truth itself, as expressed in the lives of real Christians). Problems arise from the fact that it is difficult for mere mortals to distinguish between the two in real-life instances--discernment and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are necessary.

The Nikonian reform gives a good example of this. When Patriarch Nikos imposed his reforms in 1652, there was a big division between those who accepted the reforms and those who did not. Those who did not contended that Nikos had abandoned the tradition of the Church, and therefore, the true faith. Certainly, the new practices were not "traditional" in the sense of being handed down from past generations, but in another sense, they were traditional, since part of the tradition that was handed down was obedience to our canonically-appointed bishops.

In any event, those who accepted the reforms continued to pass them on to the following generations, so that these practices were now what had been handed down and received, as far as those generations were concerned. They were holding fast to the traditions they had been taught. For their part, so were the Old Believers.

There are three possible ways of regarding these historical facts (for simplicity's sake, I am limiting this discussion to the Old Believers vs. Nikonians):

• The Old Believers were right, and the Nikoninans should repent, and be re-united with them
• The Nikoninans were right, and the Old Believers should repent, and be re-united with them
• Both sides need to set aside the acrimonies of the past, and in a spirit of Christian charity, pursue a path of reconciliation

I favor a path of reconciliation.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I knew we could find something to look at in a very limited frame. I will say that the Old Believers have rejoined Canonical Orthodoxy through ROCOR yet retain the old practices. It seemed that both groups had alot in common. I know that the group that I am talking about is the old believers with priest. But anyway the path as you would call it was an easy one. No different theology,calender,and major practices that would seem to distant of a gulf to bridge. Chad

If your position is that the Orthodox are right and the Roman Catholics (and Easterners in communion with Rome) should repent and be re-united with them, what is there to discuss? Some Catholics, of course, still say the same in reverse. But Rome is pursuing the path of reconciliation; hence doing the same is simply part of what it means to be in communion.

Funny, but I do not see those words in the deacon's post. As a Catholic, I will affirm that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (of which I am a member) is indeed, not divided. Christianity is divided. Some belong to the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and others do not.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Hello

It's been a long time since I posted for the last time on this forum.

I want to say that Orthodoxy as a whole has many good things. After all it's through it that I learnt the Christian faith. However, I am now convinced that the Orthodox Church is not the true Church of Christ. I attone and will probably have to attone more for what I did, that is, bringing people to the Eastern Orthodox Church and actively supporting their falling away from the Roman Catholic Church.

I must say that many people join the Orthodox Church for ilegitimate reasons, that is, their dislike for the new Roman liturgy, their dislike for modernist and liberal priests, their rejection of JPII's personality cult and his destruction of Catholicism, and so on. It's obviously very confortable to be in a Church where the liturgy will always be celebrated correctly and reverently and to forget about all other things, but that is not everything.

It's actually the anti-Roman hatred of the Orthodox (not all of them but an important part of them) what moved me to research and read more and that's how I discovered that such anti-Roman hatred is inspired by the same spirit of Protestantism that inspired the Protestant "reformers". I felt that the Orthodox apologists often use the same arguments of the Protestants to condemn the Roman Church. The Roman Church and the Papacy is attacked all the time, it's always been that way and this is because it is a true institution. Both Orthodox and Protestants are moved by the same spirit of bitterness.

Most of the writings of the saints venerated by both Orthodox and Catholics refer to the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church has always been identified with the Church of Christ.

Apostolic Succession isn't only about "having valid orders". Many people think that the Catholic Church recognizes all other priestly Churches as equally valid than herself but this is false. The Orthodox bishops posess the priesthood and can therefore ordain priests. However, the lack the authority of Christ, they have no apostolic mission and they have no jurisdiction. They are USURPING and occupying dioceses and territories that were stolen from the Catholic Church.

Just as the Orthodox Church believes that the mysteries performed outside the Church have no grace, the Catholic Church sustains that the holy mysteries, when performed outside the Church, are not unto salvation even if they are "valid". Let us not forget the words of St. Augustine:

"Baptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church. As even if it can indeed exist outside the Catholic Church; it is not unto salvation, because there it does not work salvation; just as that sweet savour of Christ is not unto salvation in those that die, due to a fault not in itself but in them."

Pope St. Gregory Dialogus also stated that holy mysteries performed outside the Church will have their effect once the person is reunited with the Church.

My opinions about Ecumenism are not different from those I held when I actively participated at the Orthodox Church. Ecumenism has no sense at all if it is not intended to show heretics their errors or reunite schismatics with the True Church. No unity will come from the modern Ecumenism. It just brings a false, wordly and hypocritical sentiment of "brotherhood". One day you see a picture of a prelate embracing the Pope and some days later you will see the same prelate at his church feeding his congregation with anti-Roman feelings and calling him a three-horned heretic. Is there any reason for the Pope to bow before such people?

Even if they wanted to reach a kind of agreement with the Catholic Church they would be unable to do it under the present conditions. No unity will come because the Orthodox Church has no way of defining dogma (this also proves that the Orthodox Church does not have the authority of Christ). There is no absolute agreement (among the Orthodox) about what happens to the soul after death, and so on, because of this same reason. However, they will always say that Catholics are wrong even if they actually believe what Catholics believe (this is a sure sign of a schismatic spirit). On the other side, the Catholic response to all these questions is always clear.

I felt defrauded when I read the Fathers and I saw how they believed in the primacy of St. Peter (and therefore, his successors) while the modern Orthodox now say the opposite thing.

The only true solution seems to be conversion to the Catholic Church, to recognize the Papacy and to accept that the Catholic Church has true doctrines and responses. This does not mean that one has to reject all what is Eastern. In spite of the abuses of the Papacy, such institution was necessary and if the Catholic Church held a latin-supremacist view it is because of the defection of the Eastern bishops who would have forced Rome to have more balanced and centrist views if they had remained as part of the Catholic Church.

Some modern Eastern Catholics believe Vatican II to be good as it allowed them to recover their Eastern heritage. This might be true, but the intention wasn't to purify the Eastern liturgy and to make it more Eastern. The Ecumenists did it because they wanted Eastern Catholics to sooner or later embrace Orthodoxy. The Balamand Agreement is a betrayal to all those Christians who suffered persecution under the secular powers that supported the Orthodox Churches and all because they wanted to be part of the true Church.

The Vatican II "spirit" will also attempt to corrupt the Eastern Churches and this is already happening. Please visit the new churches that the Greek Catholic Church has built in Transylvania and you will see how these churches have no iconostas, no icons and how the typicon is not being respected by the priests who celebrate the liturgy. I haven't seen this myself but in some places guitars are being used (not long ago someone who was in Slovakia posted this).

I believe we must defend the traditions of the East and the West, preserving the purity of the liturgy and the beauty of our temples, ressist Ecumenism and religious indifferentism.

After discovering all the truths of Traditional Catholicism (truths that I ignored even though I was born and raised in a Catholic country) I had no other option but to leave the Orthodox Church. I am now labeled a traitor by the Orthodox. However, I prefered to be part of the True Church and fight for the restoration of Catholic Orthodoxy. This is not a betrayal of the Eastern tradition.

I am sorry if my words offended you.

Look its real simple. Everyone wants to ignore the elephant in the room.You might think it is worthwhile to beat a dead horse but then what. Fact remains that there is certain points that the Orthodox want resolved and the Franks dont. And I am sure vise versa.

Who will give in? Will the majority Orthodox move calenders?Will Rome stay out of Russia?Will the EP move to America? On and on.

To be honest I dont see why you dont try and figure out the outcome of the 8th ecumenical council. Or if there is going to be one. Or if you will be apart of it. I am sure you have all seen that this is in play.

Anyways what does it have to do with salvation. Chad

What's with calendars. Five or six times I've asked, what is so special about the Julian Calendar, and just what do you people have against celebrating your feasts in the proper season on the proper day? Or is it really about finding some other nit-picky little grievance to maintain your nice, comfortable isolation?

Let's end this charade, right now. We hereby formally announce our candidacy for Emperor of the Romans. If elected Basileus, We will immediately convene a council of all the bishops of all the Churches at a location to be determined by Us, where We shall hear from all sides and, acting as God's Vice-Gerent on Earth and Thirteenth Apostle, We shall ensure a meeting of the minds so that unity in the Holy Spirit will prevail to the greater glory of the Most Holy Trinity (and Our Imperial Self, of course).

All We need is your vote, so, as they say in Chicago, "Vote early, vote often".

The Orthodox vs. the Franks, eh? We're still in the 9th -11th centuries. Frankly (pun intended), this attitude proves Mexican's point: Orthodoxy for many intellectuals and converts is bitterness and hatred towards Rome.

Deacon Richard:

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

May I submit a link to an address of Archbishop John R. Quinn, given at Oxford University in 1996, on this topic. It seems to me to do the hard kind of questioning and reflection that you have called for in the first post to this thread. Unlike rehashing the old polemics, it calls us to reconciliation and to ponder where we all are now and where we go from here.




In Christ,

Bob

Chad,

What is the point of all this rhetoric? You're not impressing anyone here. Let's discuss some real issues.


Undoubtedly, there are many (I hope it's not very many!) on both sides that are seeking something *other* than the will of God. Typically, such people cling to the status quo come what may, but there will also be some--probably more on the RC side--who relish change for its own sake. Often, however, they will employ holy-sounding words to reinforce their own position.

The real question, as I see it, is whether it's the ones seeking unity who are acting for Godly reasons, or only the ones who cling to a notion of "pure" Orthodoxy.


I'm not aware that Rome is insisting on any of these things.


More rhetoric. Are you trying to avoid any real discussion?


The Church was given a mandate by her Lord to make disciples of all nations. We could do that if we would work together, instead of fighting amongst ourselves like the Midianites in Judges 7:22.


Peace,
Deacon Richard