www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic 2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Reunion

Interesting perspective -- neither side sees anything to gain by reunion, and both feel "they" have been right all along.

I wonder if the lessons of the parable of the prodigal son could be applied here, where BOTH sons should ask forgiveness to return to the Father?

My girlfriend is Roman Catholic, and I am on the verge of becoming Byzantine Catholic, emphasis on Byzantine.

So many of her friends have absolutely zero concept of anything that Eastern Christianity represents, and the Orthodox Church to them is a bizarre strange creature. Protestants they understand. Evangelicals they understand. Orthodoxy genuinely is alien to them, which is ironic, because they have as much if not more in common with the East than with a Protestant. But these friends are devout, pious Catholics. Not the name-only variety, but the ones that become clergy and church leaders. And they are essentially ignorant of Eastern Christianity.

I think that there are visionaries - as well as unmoveable bureaucrats - in the leadership levels of both churches, and I believe if the laity was not a factor in the decision, reconciliation would not be far along. It makes too much sense pragmatically. Both churches are fighting secularism more so than they are each other, the Catholic hierarchy is much more willing to accept a new perspective on what it means to be Pope (see Ratzinger proposal), and the Orthodox are aware and accepting of a historical measure of primacy. The Greek EP would benefit immensely by having the weight of Rome and the West behind him in dealing with the Turkish authorities. Eastern Christians could do much to help burnish the knocks that Rome has taken in the past decades. In short, they need each other as allies much more than they do not, and it really seems the leadership understands this. The Russian church, although seeming implacable at times, will have the final say, and hopefully, despite much tension, efforts to soften the divide there will continue, with God's grace.

But for centuries, Catholics have learned to define themselves by how they define the Pope, and Orthodox have learned to define themselves by how *they* define the Pope. Most rank and file Orthodox could list none of the differences between them and Catholics beyond the Pope. It will begin and end with the Pope, nevermind that for a thousand years this was not a problem at all.

I'm not a big believer in top-down movements, but I truly believe that it will take a bold and creative effort from the Pope as well as the Orthodox leadership to get behind a "new understanding."

Key to it should be inter-communion. Simply establishing inter-communion will erase many of the taboos. What better connective tissue between churches and believers than the body and blood of Christ? Catholics already accept Orthodox Christians as ready to receive in Catholic churches. I wish a bold Orthodox Church would make the same commitment.

But the rank and file will never spur this own its own, in either church. There is too much mistrust that has been sewn. Unfortunately, forums such as this are few and far between. Which, in my mind, makes the work that we do on our own local levels that much more significant.

I am very anxious to see what comes of the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council.

I always wonder in such surveys as to who was asked.
The Orthodox laity I know think reunion would be fantastic and that a lot of the division is just caused by pride.
Stephanos I

It's very similar to the situation of Catholics in the United States before V-II, who saw *not* being Protestant as an essential part of their identity.


This is an example of the *siege* mentality that is virtually inevitable when you see yourself as a small island of the true faith in the midst of a sea of heretics. (An extreme version of this sees those "heretics" as no different from--or perhaps even worse than--the godless secular culture that dominates our present-day society.


I will agree with this only to the extent that there is a growing movement of "neo-ultramontanists" in the RCC, which is very evident on some of the RC forums. By and large, however, Catholics simply have no idea what the issues behind the East-West schism are, and many even think the schism is already ended (if they are aware of it at all).


Amen, brother! We tend to like things in neat packages, yet that is something that is singularly absent in both Scripture and Church history.

What is really needed here is a new focus on Christ, who hasn't abandoned any of us and in Whom can be found the resolution of all our issues.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

I wholeheartedly agree.

How many have you spoken with on the matter?

Whatever number I give will be statistically insignificant compared to the amount of "rank and file" Orthodox Christians on the planet, so it really doesn't matter, does it? If you want to say something, just say it.

I was just trying to understand if you meant most you've talked to, most in one church, most in the U.S., most everywhere, etc. Most can mean a lot of things. My guess is most in the "most everybody" sense probably could list some differences beyond the Papacy, but that's just my guess; at least that is my experience with most everybody who is Orthodox.

I will add one other point, why does it make sense to discuss reconciliation with the Orthodox Church when there are clearly issues with the Eastern churches in the Catholic communion as talked about in the "Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops" thread? Wouldn't it make sense to sort out those issues first both as a matter of internal importance and as an example to those on the outside that the desire to seek alternate forms of primacy and church organization are not just words?

I once asked a priest friend in a certain city to what extent, in his opinion, did the priests in that city (which is largely Catholic) honestly believe in Papal infallibility and in the Pope's universal jurisdiction.

My fried responded by asking me whether I was referring to priests who would endorse those teachings, or priests who would act upon those teachings.

We both laughed and discussed something else.

Gosh, I really can't think of a single time in my life where the Pope's infallibility or universal jurisdiction actually had a direct influence on my daily faith-walk.

I mean, I saw the Pope when he visted Chicago 30 years ago, but that's about the closest I've ever come to brushing up against infallibility and universal jurisdiction.

Really. What happens at the very top often has little to do with one's normal everyday life.

In my experience most regular attending Orthodox can quickly name Papal Infallibility, the Filioque, Purgatory and the Immacualte Conception.

i honestly, don't know, but could the reason be that they are taught these particular issues as dividing in receving their catechesis?

But as evidenced by the thread about the Middle Eastern bishops, these directly impact the reality Eastern Catholics live in.


No, and I say that as both a parent and Sunday School teacher. I think Deacon Lance's list just represents a short common list, to which I would probably add a few things. I am personally often finding new things that mark substantial differences and ran across another one today.

I don't think it is a question of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope but of the Latin Patriarchate having control of parishes out side its traditional territory. At least thats how I see it. (I could bewrong) The Eastern Bishops want the expanding of the territories of Eastern Patriarchs to cover their flocks in the Diaspora on an equal footing with the Latin Church. I would argue that this call (from the Bishops) is in line with the teachings of Vatican II that the Eastern Churches are that- particular Catholic Churches- and I pray that the legitimate rights and issues addressed at this synod bring about changes. Rome speaks of the equality of all Churches so lets see it put into action!

As a Byzantine Catholic the two points in question (universal jurisdiction and papal infalibility) have never affected my day to day living of the faith. (Neither has the Filioque, unleavened bread, purgatory, and all the other long list of polemics that keep us divided)


Instead of Catholics and Orthodox finding new things that mark differences between the Latin West and Byzantine East why can't we focus on what unites us? When we stop thinking of what divides us and start looking at what unites us we are more alike than some would like to admit. It worked for the first thousand years, why can't it work now?

Just my thoughts. Good discussion!

The Latin church overseeing Eastern churches outside their traditional territories is central to the universal jurisdiction issue IMO. The Latin church of course also reserves the right to act within their traditional territories, but not does not as a matter of course.


It's actually interesting you bring that up, because it was in reference to Vatican II that I just happened to run across something that highlights another difference (I really am not trawling around looking for differences). It's in a piece written by Fr. Hopko here [ocanews.org].


I guess the natural question then is what value are they given the negative effects of having defined both if they really don't enter in to the life of the faithful. Honestly, that's simply another reason I would not accept either; aside from the fact that they don't meld with Orthodox ecclesiology.

Lastly, I think someone in the thread said something along the lines that a movement to reconcile can't come from the faithful. I would say in my own opinion that could not be more wrong.