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

Neither are some Orthodox.

In the heart of my heart all belong to the body of Christ, but not all are the big toe.

This is precisely the problem. The Catholics believe that the things that Orthodox see as barriers to reunion are not really barriers at all, and if they wait long enough the Orthodox will see that.

On the other hand, the Orthodox await the day when the Catholics will actually realise that the big barrier is the Roman definition of primacy and are willing to talk about that in a serious way.

I also, as an Orthodox, am somewhat sensitive about the Eastern Catholics being grouped with "us" - and I am a former Eastern Catholic. Just be aware that there are some sensitivities there.

My primary concern with this grouping is that whatever arguments are peddled in this forum to the contrary, from an Orthodox viewpoint Eastern Catholics have in effect decided that the Roman approach to primacy is not an issue by remaining in communion with Rome. So if anything, they should be grouped with the Roman Catholics, who do not see the Roman definition of primacy as a problem, rather than the Orthodox, who decidedly do.

Whilst I acknowledge the argument of some Eastern Catholics that it is better to fight ecclesiological battles from within the tent, I think this approach has manifestly failed to do anything but prop up the Roman attitude that there is no problem - Rome can look to the Eastern Catholics and satisfy itself that there is nothing material to prevent union. This is why, for the Orthodox, Eastern Catholicism is more of a hindrance than a help to unity at this point.

THis is also why, as a former Eastern Catholic, I think those who desire communion with Rome are far better placed to work for it from within the Orthodox Churches. A perfect example of the fact that even some in the Vatican see things this way is the reality that the Vatican is far more interested in an active dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is very aware of the problems of primacy and has able theologians to debate it in a serious way (Met Hilarion Alfeyev for one), than in promoting the growth of a Russian Catholic rite, a fact acknowledged by the Russian Catholic priest Sergei Golovanov in his excellent article on the history of Russian Catholicism in the Soviet Union.

Unity is best served by subversives in both Churches. You work your side of the street, and I will work mine. Of course, the Chekists on both sides will be after us because of it.

If I may say, I think this is somewhat of a caricature of Catholic thought. Although it's certainly true that JPII said that Catholics and Orthodox are so close that little is lacking for full communion, that isn't the same as saying that there are no barriers at all.

Now, to be fair, a similar caricature can sometimes be seen in the other direction. I'm thinking of the idea, found among many Catholics, that any Catholic who believes everything about Catholicism except one dogma – let's say papal infallibility [or UOJ, or the I.C.] – should leave and join the Orthodox Church. This is, of course, problematic for multiple reasons, but for the sake of this discussion I'll just point out one problem: that the Catholic in question, the one who is “supposed” to convert to Orthodoxy, agrees with the Orthodox about one particular point, i.e. rejecting P.I. [or UOJ, or the I.C.], but disagrees with Orthodoxy on other points.

What points might the Catholic disagree with the Orthodox on, particular if they were an Eastern Catholic to start with?

Or more accurately, what are points that said Catholic might disagree on with the Orthodox that are as serious as matters such as Primacy?

I also don't think that my comments were quite a caricature; my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says there is little needed for common Eucharist celebration, and indeed Catholics permit Orthodox to commune in their churches already, which would seem to indicate few if any barriers are perceived.

"UOJ"?

I have to agree, that there is more than is commonly admitted to any reuninion of the Vatican to the Orthodox sees, e.g. the role and importance of visionaries and apparitions have yet to be addressed in any meanful way, although many Orthodox believers see this as an impediment to a return of Western Rome.

Interesting, considering the important role of visions in the Orthodox faith (or do you intend to ditch the Feast of the Pokhrov?). This strikes me as an act of desperation--"We're running out of substantive points of disagreement--let's pick nits".

You may not be aware, but besides the Slavs it had been pretty much ditched. It is now been transferred among the Greeks to "No" Day, and given a new lease on life with that.

No command to write an icon (though one was written to commemorate the event, like any other event involving the saints). No command to institution a new feast day. No instructions for new devotions. No new revelations of dogma. Just the example of prayer, which those who saw the vision were doing anyway.

No, visions nowhere play an important role in the Church. The Fathers specifically warn against them.


The cult of visions is a substantive point of disagreement often overlooked. It is a major point of why I have come to the conclusion that "reunion" talks waste time, energy and effort better spent in working in concert on issues we agree on.

I am aware of it and find it amusing that the Slavs continue to commemorate a feast celebrating the defeat of a Slavic army. But that is neither here nor there--Byzantine spirituality is full of visionaries, many of whose visions have as wide a following as those of Latin visionaries.


Wouldn't be the first time the Orthodox ignored the Fathers, would it? Flying tollbooths, anyone?


Other than you, who is having a disagreement?


Both/and, not either/or.

Then naming a few shouldn't be a problem, now should it? Even in the case of St. Andrew, he is known as a Fool for Christ, and his visions play only a supporting role to that.

LOL. No one.
It never ceases to amaze me that apologists and polemicists for the Vatican know so much more about tollboths then the Orthodox. I've been Orthodox for decades, and have come across them for the first time (they are not known in the Middle East AFAIK) just a few years ago reading 19th century Russian writeers (e.g. St. Theofan), and even then they are just alluded to (granted, they seem to take them for granted). I've only come across Old Calendarists (and the above apologists and polemicists)trying to pass them off as Orthodox dogma.
The status of Limbo at present given the recent pronouncement by the Vatian corresponds to the status of "toll boths" among the Orthodox. Maybe the Sedevacantists and the Old Calendarists can get together on that.



E.g. http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/08/troubling-aspects-of-catholic-marian.html

and elsewhere.


Not "both/and" nor even 'either/or," but "nothing but"

Given that we are approaching Lent, how about the Sunday of St. John Climacus, whose vision of the Ladder of Divine Ascent is captured in that lovely icon (I like the cute little demons with their pruning hooks).


So, you are saying that the Orthodox treat visions in the same manner that Catholics do, right?


So, basically you direct me to Orthodox sites where Orthodox spout off about Catholic doctrine with the same degree of ignorance you accuse Catholics of possessing about Orthodox doctrine.

LOL. Care to quote that "vision?" Not the icon, which ia a metaphorical representation of his magnus opus, but the narrative of this "vision."


The Catholic response to visions is to ignore them, and let them affirm and confirm the Orthodox Faith. The Vatican response is to put them front and center, and let them become the axis of the faith.

Forget comparing the Vatican to the Orthodx East: compare it to Orthodox Rome. What Fatima existed before 1054? Who was the Bernadette of the first millenium in the West? What promises did the cults the like of the Sacred Heart make while the pope of Old Rome were in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

You asked for others who also disagreed with sweepiong this difference under the rug. You were provided with the same. Care to cite an example of their alleged "ignorance" of the Vatican's teachings?

"ignorance you accuse Catholics of possessing about Orthodox doctrine." Care to cite something, just to refresh my memory?

I'm not married to the word "caricature"; I'm willing to change it to "overgeneralization".

Fr Neuhaus, may he rest in peace, said that "what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" -- which I guess made him part of the Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome crowd -- but that view cannot be attributed to Catholics as a whole.


That's similar to the JPII statement I cited earlier.

That's pretty much a crock, you know. And, if you really knew Catholic Church history, you would recognize that the hierarchy is usually pulled, not pushed, by popular devotions. When it does act on them, it is usually to restrain excesses of enthusiasm among the laity.


See your own statement above regarding the role of Marian visions in Latin theology.