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

Gee, we haven't had a good calendar thread in a while--now, that's a place for some good heated discussion!

I'd like to keep this one a bit cooler, though.

Stuart,

I agree! Better yet I was told by a Baptist one time that they predated both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches because they went into hiding when John was arrested and didnt come out till later. So we could put them in charge.

Gabriel,

Relax. Who were the Romans anyways? Did not everyone have that name in the empire? Would latins be a better name? Seems like we Orthodox always have ethnic ties like "Russian Orthodox" I for one am just Orthodox.I also am poor and uneducated.

Look everyone I have the best idea. If Rome would allow us Orthodox to sack the Vatican I think everything would be tied up.It would help all the people in the old countries to get over it all. Better yet like I said let the Baptist figure it out.

Ok so lets be serious. It is very well known what the Orthodox points are for reunion. Can anyone tell me what the Vatican wants us to fix for them? Strait forward.

Sorry if I rub you the wrong way. Chad

Ok what are the real issues? I have just listened to all of this before and I dont mean to sound rude but come on. I dont know what you want?

I say we play it as its just you and me one on one and I will represent all of Orthodoxy and you represent all of Rome.

I come to the table and start with an open friendly calm approach.My first thing to address would be Coredemptrix.

then we can discuss others Chad

Coredemptrix is not and has never been a dogma of the RCC.

However, it is the East that prays, "most holy Mother of God, save us!"

Ok dogma, I guess I didnt know about that not being dogma but I did read it in the CCC.

If we go with dogma then what of Immaculate Conception proclaimed by a bull in 1854 by Pope Pius.

Then the Assumption in 1950 by Pius xii.

both of these are logical deductions from the Roman understanding of Original sin. And I would say that is the root of these correct? So I guess we could just skip those two points and go with original sin. Would that be better? Chad

There is only one real issue, and that is the definition and exercise of the Petrine Ministry. None of the other issues you raised was of concern in the first millennium, when the Churches were in communion. If not a problem then, not a problem now.

not to take this off topic, but the doctrine of the co-redemptrix isn't in the CCC, as far as I know.

Isn't and never will be.

Chad,

That is an accurate evaluation. The Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin indeed underlies both of the "marian dogmas," and the former will always be a part of the Western theological tradition. The Eastern tradition is not so clear-cut in this regard, and there is a tendency to regard the Western teaching as heretical.

However, the dogmatic status of this--and other uniquely Western teachings--ultimately stands or falls on whether or not Rome continues to regard the Post-schism Councils as "ecumenical." On one hand, Rome has given indications that this status is being re-considered, but on the other hand, stalwarts on the RC side will have a hard time "buying" this idea (and even some EOs will look negatively at any kind of "flip-flopping," especially where dogma is concerned). This, I believe, is the real dilemma.

The solution, as many have proposed, is increased collaboration between the RCC and EOC. Jack Figel's recent posting of an article by Melkite priest Fr. Justin entitled "The House that Jack Built" gives evidence of this:

Once an atmosphere of genuine mutual respect and trust is established--not only within the Joint Theological Consortium, or some other elite groups, but throughout the Church--it won't be so difficult to deal with the real issues.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

When in doubt, one should always fall back upon historical analysis. Was the Western doctrine of original sin an impediment to unity in the first millennium? No, it was not. Both sides were aware they had different perspectives, both sides recognized that this was an area in which there was latitude for legitimate differences. Even the status of the papacy was not considered to be of sufficient importance to undermine unity. There were Popes who thought they had authority over other Churches, and there were Patriarchs in those Churches who disagreed, and at the end of the day, all sides agreed that papal perquisites were not worth schism, and so agreed to disagree.

An important quote, from a source I have forgotten, has stuck with me for years now:

"The Church of the first millennium never knew true unity, but bore witness to it".

That is, throughout the first millennium, the Churches were always squabbling about something, sometimes quite acrimoniously. But through all that, none of them lost sight of the reality that all the Churches were part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and even when communion was broken with one or more of them, their members were still recognized as full and integral members of the Body of Christ.

Stuart,

Your comments, as always, are appreciated.

I wonder, though, if it wouldn't be more accurate to say the Church of the 1st Millennium bore a better witness to true unity than did the Church of the 2nd.

ISTM there was a lot more than "acrimonious squabbling" where the Arians were concerned, and if you say "well, they really weren't Christians," then how about the Coptic, Armenian and Assyrian Churches?

Of course, we can learn from their mistakes, as well as their example ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The extent to which the Arians, the monophysites and the nestorians were treated as beyond the pale has been exaggerated by apologists, polemicists and hagiographers over the centuries. While the leaders of these movements were subject to thundering anathemas from time to time, for the most part the rank-and-file and the lower clergy lived in relative harmony, with considerable movement back and forth. In Ravenna and elsewhere, you can see Catholic and Arian churches and baptistries literally across the street from each other. With the army of the 4th century largely composed of Arian Goths, peaceful coexistence was the rule of the day, and over time, the differences between the two groups became somewhat blurry (because Arianism covered a wide spectrum of beliefs, while the Nicene homoousios was deliberately vague).

The same can be said of the conflicts between the Monophysites or the Nestorians against the Chalcedonians, since these, far more than arianism, were terminological disagreements lacking in real substance. A few extreme Cyrillians could be called true monophysites, just as a few extreme Chalcedonians could be called diphysites; there may have been a few Nestorians who were outright adoptionists, but they hardly appear on the radar. At its roots, this was a conflict about power and influence, an intrusion of secular and ecclesiastical politics into the theological arena, as well as a clash of prickly personalities with humongous egos.

While the Nestorians quickly found themselves outside the boundaries of the oikumene, and thus left alone to follow their own course, the relationship between the Chalcedonians and the Cyrillians had a much more extended and circuitous trajectory down to the Muslim conquest of the Middle East. At that point, the Church of Constantinople lost interest in reconciling with its Eygptian and Syrian counterparts, and turned inward to develop its own unique and coherent tradition--something which ensured the survival of the Empire and the Orthodox Church, but which put an end to the quest for Christian unity for the next fifteen centuries.

Stuart,

This is interesting! A while back, our brother Johnzonoras posted some quotations from Julian the Apostate, deploring the intensity with which the Christian factions of his time (Arians vs. "Christodules") hated each other. What you're telling us is that Julian's observations were based on what he observed at an official level, and did not reflect the real-world sentiments of the rank-and-file clergy and faithful.

This is good to know--it shows that there is hope for us even now!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Well, Julian was not the most objective of sources, was he? Julian's objective was to overthrow Christianity (which he loathed, understandably, given the circumstances of his upbringing), so he would go out of his way to exaggerate shortcomings and minimize virtues.

Julian would have had a ring-side seat for the fulminations between the Arians and the Catholics at the episcopal level, but as a Caesar it's not like he would get out much and rub shoulders with the hoi polloi.

As Caesar, Julian commanded armies in Gaul, Germany and the East. A large proportion of the Army were Goths, the majority of whom were Arians. From someone on Julian's level, the differences between the two sides would have seemed trivial (and, for a pagan like Julian, nonsensical).

I think the key to understanding the situation is the speed with which Arianism disappeared (especially in the East) after the Council of Constantinople adopted the Cappodocian's "neo-Nicene" theology. Of course, Rome was suspicious of this, and waited half a century to accept the new Creed, and Harnack called Cappodocian theology "soft homoiousism", but the fact is, the clarification it offered worked to reconcile both sides and is now considered the heart and soul of orthodox Christianity (small o).

If the Christological controversies of the following century had not become so enmeshed with imperial politics (Alexandria vs. Antioch, Alexandria vs. Constantinople), and had the Persian wars not been followed immediately by the Muslim Conquest, we might have seen something similar happen to reconcile the Churches of Egypt and Syria with Constantinople.

THE CHURCH is called One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; because she is one, and holy; because she belongs to the whole world, and not to any particular locality; because by her all mankind and all the earth, and not any particular nation or country, are sanctified; because her very essence consists in the agreement and unity of the spirit and life of all the members who acknowledge her, throughout the world; lastly, because in the writings and doctrines of the Apostles is contained all the fullness of her faith, her hope, and her love.

From this it follows that when any society is called the Church of Christ, with the addition of a local name, such as the Greek, Russian, or Syrian Church, this appellation signifies nothing more than the congregation of members of the Church living in that particular locality, that is, Greece, Russia, or Syria; and does not involve any such idea as that any single community of Christians is able to formulate the doctrine of the Church, or to give a dogmatic interpretation to the teaching of the Church without the concurrence therewith of the other communities; still less is it implied that any one particular community, or the pastor thereof, can prescribe its own interpretation to the others. The grace of faith is not to be separated from holiness of life, nor can any single community or any single pastor be acknowledged to be the custodian of the whole faith of the Church, any more than any single community or any single pastor can be looked upon as the representative of the whole of her sanctity. Nevertheless, every Christian community, without assuming to itself the right of dogmatic explanation or teaching, has a full right to change its forms and ceremonies, and to introduce new ones, so long as it does not cause offense to the other communities. Rather than do this, it ought to abandon its own opinion, and submit to that of the others, lest that which to one might seem harmless or even praiseworthy should seem blameworthy to another; or that brother should lead brother into the sin of doubt and discord. Every Christian ought to set a high value upon unity in the rites of the Church: for thereby is manifested, even for the unenlightened, unity of spirit and doctrine, while for the enlightened man it becomes a source of lively Christian joy. Love is the crown and glory of the Church.


For justification of their leadership, the Roman popes refer to the words of the Savior spoken to Apostle Peter, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18) The holy fathers of the Church always understood these words to mean that the Church is built on the faith in Christ which the Apostle Peter confessed, not on Peter personally. The apostles did not consider the Apostle Peter to be their head, and in the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in 51 A.D., the Apostle James presided. With regard to the authority of the Apostle Peter, he performed the laying of hands in many cities, not only in Rome, but in Alexandria, Antioch and others. Why did not the bishops in those cities consider themselves as supreme rulers of the Church? If Peter were the supreme head of the Church, his successors could also be said to be the bishops of these cities. Moreover, the Roman Church’s first bishop was Linus, not St. Peter, and Linus ruled as bishop when St. Peter was in Rome. Deeper research into this question leads us to one honest conclusion: the teaching that St. Peter was the head of the Church was a creation of Roman popes produced by their thirst for power and their straying from the true Faith. This teaching was not established by the early Church.

For Russians it is important to examine the mutual relationship between Russia and Rome during the history of the past 1,000 years. Already at the dawn of Russia’s baptism (at the end of 10th century), the Roman pope sent emissaries to Korsun to persuade Prince Vladimir not to embrace the Orthodox Church. Emissaries were sent to Kiev with the same purpose. The pope tried to influence them through the kings of Poland and Czechoslovakia and likewise attempted to manipulate the assembly of Slavic and European princes. In response to the Tartar invasion of Russia, the pope sent armed Swedes and Venetians. Meeting defeat in battle against the Russian armies led by Prince Alexander Nevsky, the pope offered his help to battle the Tartars. He received this response, "God is not found in human strength but in truth." And the Pope answered with armed attacks in the 13th century and again in the "Times of Trouble" from 1605 to 1612. Chad