www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Steps to Reunion

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am moving a question I had on the ecumenical steps that Orthodoxy has taken. Below is my question and the thread that I originally posted on:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/352690/Re:%20Ruthenian%20latinizations#Post352690


Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Orthodox Information Center is not officially sponsored by any church. As far as I know it is the undertaking of an individual, and my impression has always been that he is somewhat of a fundamentalist mindset. I may be wrong.

On the other hand, if one can get past the site's obsession about 'heretics' ( ), there is a good amount of religious information on that site and he seems to keep it quite up to date.

--Alice

What was said in that thread? I am somewhat mystified by that comment. I think I only really suggested that the people in the Ruthenian BCC should be allowed to guide their own liturgical culture instead of merely being told what to do.


I think Orthodox Churches need to disassociate from the state in the places where they do, and get out of the political games. That would certainly have an effect on relations.

Having said that, I personally don't believe there is theological middle ground that wouldn't fatally compromise one side or the other. So I don't view joint dialog in regards to this area to be an imperative; meaning I don't think anything "needs to be done" other than witnessing to existing beliefs.

It was also asked in the other thread


This is a more complicated question than at first seems. There is actually no real theological definition of what it is that constitutes the church. Certainly in the end it comes down to the believers, and not a spokesman.

Truth needs no compromise. Catholics and Orthodox can not look for any middle ground aside from cooperative agreements where their paths cross. Since Orthodoxy (True Faith) is truth it is not about to admit that the its Faith was false. One church needs to repent and return to the fold, since Orthodoxy is the same as it has been from the beginning it is not about to make any false confessions. Again, I presume Catholics should feel the same way about their Church.

And before Nelson chimes in asking who speaks for Orthodoxy, I would like to remind him that it is a conciliar church led by the Holy Spirit (See the book of Acts Chapter 15).

Simplistic in the extreme, Mike. If the truth is to be derived, then both Churches must examine their own history with open hearts, open minds, and an absolute commitment to honesty. And, I think, both will find that each has sinned against the other, and that neither has deviated from the Tradition in a manner that justifies declaring the other to be heterodox, heretical or in such fundamental error as to require a severing of communion.

But, hey, better and smarter men than I, both Catholic and Orthodox, have said the same thing. The real question is, how devoted are you to Christian unity, and how devoted are you to proving your side is right?

I agree with Stuart. Both sides need to adopt the position of recognizing the plank in their own eye in the spirit of "how did my side contribute to the estrangement".

But for centuries, the focus has been on the speck in the eye of their brother.
Saying this, does not mean that Orthodoxy needs to change their doctrines. Part of the problem is that exactly what Stuart said is interpreted to mean that the Orthodox must change from the Tradition handed down to the Apostles.

It's all in the change of focus from assigning blame and who must return to the fold, to one of, do I truly see the other as brother in good faith.

I strive for simplicity but most who know me would not consider me extreme in the least!

What kind of communion do the Catholics want with the Orthodox? Eucharistic Communion can only be achieved when there is a shared common faith. At this point in time these main differences separate the Orthodox and Catholics (though there are probably countless more).

Theology of the Filoque
Papal Universal Jurisdiction
Papal Infallibility
Immaculate Conception
Dating of Pascha
Condemnation of Palamnism

Are the Catholics willing to drop these doctrinal developments in order to share in the cup of salvation? If not we will remain separated. Nothing saying that we can not be friends and seek out salvation as our Churches have taught us.

Most of the issues Mike posits are in fact non-issues. For instance, on the Filioque the Catholic Church's clarification makes it quite clear that it accepts the Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. What more do the Orthodox want?

The doctrine of the immaculate conception poses a problem only to dyspeptic Romanidians who read more into it than is really there. And, taken with charity, those of us who hold to an Eastern Christian anthropology would say, at worse, that the doctrine is necessary given Western assumptions about the nature of sin, but utterly irrelevant given our own. Your real objection is its dogmatization and the manner in which it was promulgated. But at least you left out the dogmatization of the Dormition and Assumption, which is progress.

There never was a condemnation of Palamism, and we commemorate St. Gregory on the Second Sunday of Lent, just as you do. So, let's move on.

The dating of Pascha is not a theological issue and should not be raised to one. The truth be told, the Orthodox object to the Gregorian calendar for the same reason the Protestants once did--it originated in the Church of Rome. Other than that, the argument has no merit. The Julian Calendar is out of phase with the heavens, meaning, well, that it doesn't tell good time anymore. I suggest you appoint an Emperor of the Romans to make the necessary intercalations and bring it into line with the solstices, or accept the Gregorian calendar and have done. Because, when you start discussing the calendar, it means you have nothing of substance left to discuss and are being obstreperous for the sake of being obstreperous. Ask the Orthodox, who have to deal with their own calendrial fanatics.

Which leaves two substantive issues, both related to papal perquisites. And, since Pope John Paul II put both on the table, the Orthodox have proven singularly reluctant to address either of them. There has been some progress, to the extent that an increasing number of prominent Orthodox theologians have recognized the existence and necessity of universal primacy within the Church, and the historical reality that this primacy resided with the Bishop of Rome. Now, the task is--as Pope John Paul II said--finding a definition and modality for exercising that primacy in a manner that promotes rather than impedes unity.

And, I suspect, the reason the Orthodox are unwilling to grasp the nettle--even though it is what they said they wanted to discuss from the beginning--is the realization that current Orthodox ecclesiology is uncanonical and has no historical basis, and that the kind of "primacy of honor" given to the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium, while not the "plena potestas" of Vatican I, was considerably more than the nominal primacy Orthodoxy now extends to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Orthodoxy is a small pond filled with big fish who would like to be bigger fish, still.

For their part, Catholics are going to have to accept the relativization of all the second millennium councils held in the West, unless these are received voluntarily by the Eastern Churches as being ecumenical in nature. And they are going to have to recognize that a juridical primacy did not exist in the first millennium, did not serve the cause of Christian unity well in the second, and will have to be retired in the third.

But, of course, none of that can happen until the Orthodox decide among themselves not merely what they oppose, but what they will support--until, that is, they develop a consensus about the nature of primacy and the relationship between primacy and conciliarity, that is based firmly in the history and the Tradition of the Church, and not in the parochial interests of one particular Church or another.

See, I told you you were being simplistic.

Does a shared common faith mean that the expression of that faith must be solely Latin or solely Greek? Can't the shared faith be viewed within the patrimony of each others' individual rite?
Can communion come when both sides have distrust of the other, as operating in bad faith due to history?
I think that the strained relations due to persecutions and wrongs on both sides have blurred the ability to see the complimentarity that East and West share.

Stuart,
there are still remnants of Ultramontanism in the West, especially in the particular way in which Pastor Aeternus has been interpreted. It is clear that Lumen Gentium has moved away from that. However, the true collegial nature of the Pope and Bishops still must be nailed down in the west, I think, before the East is willing to seriously look at Rome without suspicision that it will try to impose an absolute monarchy model upon them, that this is essential.

Mike, I agree with all those and the issue of IV Constantinople probably would be on the list as well. I don't think it's a matter of a bulleted list though with items you can just check on or check off. The points above highlight important areas that reach in to the ecclesial consciousness of each church. What is the nature of sin? What is the nature of the church? What authority exists and how is it exercised? Those go deeply in to multiple areas. As deficient as we are, I believe we have the right answers to the questions; though sometimes the answer is there is no clear answer.

I like Catholics and find much I like and appreciate in Catholicism. There is however much I don't agree with; so I don't believe any major dialog will do anything but create divisions within Orthodoxy.

This is an important point: I have found an unfortunate tendency among many Orthodox to reject the legitimacy of any usage or mode of theological expression that is not explicitly Byzantine--whether it be Armenian, Coptic, Syrian or Catholic. The way in which the Orthodox treat their own Western rite is indicative not only of the attitude, but of a failure to recognize that the development of Byzantine-Orthodox doctrine (yes, Orthodox doctrine develops, too) continued past the schisms with the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Latin Church. It is also a failure to recognize that a Church which is exclusively Byzantine--or exclusively Latin, or exclusively anything--can make no pretensions to ecumenicity.

It is our job, as Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, to bear witness to the potential, and to drive Rome towards making it a reality. But we cannot do that when we are still deeply conflicted about our own identity and refuse to consider ourselves to be Orthodox Christians, but something else, neither Orthodox nor Roman.

And, as has been mentioned here, Rome has also done the same in imposing latinizations upon the Eastern Churches.

it truly is a two-way street on this one.

danman,

Can you give specific examples where Rome itself has imposed any latinizations upon the Eastern Catholic Churches? I know such is the case among many of the Oriental Catholic Churches, but to my knowledge Rome itself has never imposed any latinizations on the Byzantine Churches, and has consistently condemned said latinizations.