www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West All for One? The idea of unity divides Catholics and Orthodox Christians

Here one must distinguish between "birth control" and "contraception". The Latin Church condemns the latter but upholds the former. This is why the Church promotes Natural Family Planning as a means of spacing births Couple to Couple League [ccli.org] and condemns the use of the Pill and barriers. The former is a form of birth control (good for reasons of resource stewardship) and the latter is a form of contraception (active against the sign of sex God has given us).

Rather than turn the thread into something everyone is trying to keep it from turning into, I'd simply recommend the encyclicals: Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. What the OCA quote is referring to, precisely, when it says "control of conception of a child" I can't tell.

Actually, this is a very eye opening topic from an Orthodox standpoint. I have discussed unity with a number of Greek Orthodox in my church, including a number of converts from the Catholic Church. To be honest with you, there was absolutely no interest at all in unity. Ms. Mathewes-Green really explained it well. In discussing this with my wife, a former Roman Catholic said, she respects the Pope but "why would we want that institution?" Most Orthodox see no need for it whatsoever. On top of that, most Orthodox just don't care about unity and can never see themselves as "Catholics". Orthodox can't why they should unite, Catholics can't see why we should not unite.

After spending a lot of time thinking about this and talking to people about this, the only "union" that we will ever really have is a sense that we may be able to take communion in each other's churches. Not unless there is some major cultural change, will there ever be any real union and the reason for it comes from us, the Orthodox. The Orthodox are very comfortable with the thought that you should have your churches and we should have our Churches. Irish and Poles should be Catholic, Greeks and Russians should be Orthodox and that is just how the world works. Using the baseball analogy, we can all be baseball fans but we all can't be Red Sox fans. In Toronto, you should root for the Jays and in Detroit, we will root for the Tigers.

Hi jp,

The problem is given Orthodox ecclesiology this cannot happen unless there is full unity of faith and doctrine. That has to precede communion, because among other things communion is a visible sign of shared faith.

What you�re describing there is phyletism, and it has been condemned by an Orthodox synod. I would say it is not so much a hindrance to reunion with the West (and in an odd way I think actually favors it) as it is an internal threat to Orthodoxy.

Andrew

Thanks for the article. It was very intersting. Though I can honestly I say that I do not understand a bit of the commentary provided here the article was very intersting!

I disagree with the author�s contention that unity has different definitions among the Orthodox and the Catholics. For both Churches, unity means belonging to the Church, believing what the Church teaches and doing what the Church practices. Hence, I think the issue in Catholic-Orthodox unity is not different definitions of the word "unity."

Instead, I think the issue is that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are just different. They are different Churches that have different beliefs and that have different practices. Also, to achieve unity, either Church or both Churches would need to change themselves fundamentally. That would not be just fundamental change on issues of papacy and filioque and so on; it would also be a willingness to *want* to be in union with each other.

Hence, the real question is whether the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are willing and wanting to change themselves fundamentally in order to achieve unity. Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the answer seems to be no. Each Church seems pleased with its fundamental nature, and each Church seems to prefer that the other Church should change fundamentally. I realize that the various theological talks between the Churches can produce technically acceptable compromises, but technical agreements aren�t enough. There must be a real desire for reunion, and there must be a real and mutual willingness by both Churches to give up something fundamental of themselves in order to reunite with each other. It is like a divorced couple who are contemplating reunion. They might talk about reunion, and they might go on some dates together, and they even might talk about getting a place together or moving into one or the other�s home; but, in fact, it seems that both are more pleased to continue living in their own, separate homes and in their own, established ways of life.

Thus, real unity might not happen. I'm speculating here, but charitable love and mutual respect might be the only real unity that Catholics and Orthodox will have this side of heaven.

Just my 2 cents worth.

--John

I actually believe it is different in a fundamental way, though both sides share many aspects about what unity constitutes. On the Orthodox side unity is chiefly brought about by shared faith, symbolized first and foremost by the Eucharist. Certainly that is a very important part of unity in Catholicism as well. Above all else though, unity is structural as FMG said. It means submission to the Roman Pontiff. That is the true touchstone of Catholic unity, even above faith. I think that�s why for instance people like Hans K�ng, Edward Schillebeeckx and Rembert Weakland remain Catholics in good standing and the SSPX are regarded as schismatic. The sin of the SSPX was not that it changed the faith, it was that it defied the authority of the Pope.

Not only are they not enough, they represent the real problem with ecumenical discussions because what they are doing is using a least common denominator to defining acceptable doctrine. A lot of people on both sides don�t like this for understandable reasons.

Andrew

Beloved Brethren,

I am not optimistic about unity happening from the Orthodox side any time soon because of, primarily, in my opinion, this most intrinsic underlying issue: fear and trepidation into the unknown. (I am not saying that this is not understandable considering Western history, Latin triumphalism, the Ottoman Empire, the evil of communism, and how the individual Orthodox churches had to learn to survive on their own, though earnest prayer to God for enlightenment, as well as forgiveness, mutually respectful friendships on the part of laity and clergy, and purification of memory, can certainly remedy it.)

I my opinion, all roads of eloquent rationale by well known spokespersons, do nothing more than lead back to this basic reason.

On the other hand, unfortunately I do believe that in this century, something terrible will happen in our world that will threaten the Christian faith, and that when that terrible thing happens, that unity will then come very, very quickly.

Until then, or hopefully, until we realize the threat Christianity faces from outside forces, (you know the sayings: divide and conquer; strength in unity; etc.) we may continue dragging our feet. I can only pray, that when spiritual unity does happen that it won't be too late.

On a positive note, the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue which is meant to iron out our theological stumbling blocks, and promote understanding, is back on track this year, after five long years.

I believe that we on this forum, Catholics, Orthodox, cradle, converts and catuchemens, are the bridges of understanding and charity that will facilitate those official dialogues. I don't believe for one moment that God has not chosen us to be here. I pray that we will all be charitable, loving and humble lights unto the darkness when we hear ignorance, intolerance, judgmentalism, and fanaticism from our respective peers.

Lord Jesus Christ, son of the Living God, have mercy on me a sinner,

In Christ,
Humbly,
Alice

AMM, the "structural" issue are certainly at work within Orthodoxy. What aspect of "faith" rather than ecclesiastical structure accounts for schisms and lack of communion among ROCOR(L), ROCOR (V), ROCA, OCA etc.?

And pleased be advised that your statement on the basis of unity in the Catholic church is in complete contradiction with the Catechism of the Catholic church - as already posted on this thread. What is the authority for your claims?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Catholics in good standing????

Now now Myles - have a drink and calm down.

Such hilarity is unbecoming in one of your tender years :p

I think something needs to be cleared up:

Catholic Teaching tells us that if one disagrees with a dogma of the Church, one is not Catholic. Period. End of story - - - *not* a Catholic.

So it would seem that, by this definition, Catholic Christians are united in faith as much as, or more than, the Orthodox.

Ms. Mathewes-Green should really do some reading before she flings this kind of dung in the eyes of her innocent readers. I believe that I, or rather the Catholic Church, has already addressed this misconception at the beginning of my post. It is blatantly false to imply that one can disagree with official Church teaching and remain a Catholic in good standing.

She is quite bold to speak for all Catholics. Is it really that difficult to add the small qualifiers "it seems to me," or, "it's my belief that," etc.?

Implying that this isn't the case with Catholicism, once again. It's easy to knock down a straw man you've constructed yourself, isn't it Ms. Mathewes-Green? :rolleyes:

A point of disagreement for many Catholics, such as myself and apparently Myles as well.

She has finally written a comment that she is nearly qualified to make. She is still speaking for an entire group of Churches, but at least she is Orthodox herself.

Who says this? I haven't heard this. Nobody in their right mind believes that one can be forced to believe something. Jeez!

Apparently Ms. Mathewes-Green and I have two different definitions of "reality."



Does she seriously entertain the notion that the Holy Father was speaking about disagreement with Church teaching when he spoke of "multiform fullness?"

I personally find it degrading and offensive to refer to the entire Catholic Communion of Churches as "Roman Catholic." This is assuming she doesn't mean only the Latin Church sui iuris, which I'm sure she doesn't. I see the "Roman" qualifier constantly in Eastern Orthodox circles, when they full well know that there are Eastern Catholic Churches around. It's an attempt to downplay the catholicity of our Church, IMO.

Logos Teen

Andrew,

I don't mean to be splitting hairs, over the word �unity,� and I think I was at risk of doing that before.

I agree with the author's gist: the Churches are different in their criteria for unity. The Catholic Church (officially) expects its members to obey the pope and his bishops (the magisterium) as the key to Catholic unity; but the Orthodox Church seems to base Orthodox unity upon fidelity to the first seven Ecumenical councils and Tradition. So, yes, the two Churches have different criteria for unity.


I would go further. I think it is trying to work out on paper what can only be worked out in hearts.

I should say something else, though, something I should have included in my previous post: We can say what we want about reunion, but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who will decide.

In the meantime, I think the most realistic and practical work at reunion is for Catholics and Orthodox to treat each other decently: with Christian love. This forum and its participants definitely fosters that work.

--John

I understand what you are saying - and in your own circles what you say may be true. But what you give is not a sample of all Orthodoxy. And also - the type of unity - they you are speaking of - is not they type of unity the Roman Catholic church desires anyway. Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic - want the type of unity that you and your friends reject. So why should anyone ask �are you for it or against it?� when what it represents is nothing anyone at all wants?


NOW - you are talking more like the union that Rome would like to have come about.

May I ask - with all respect - that you describe to us - what kind or type or style - of union that you and your Orthodox friends - reject and have no interest in.

And then, please describe what kind of union or unity would you like to see?

What kind of brotherhood - would - the Orthodox work for and move forward to?? None?

What WOULD engergies the Orthodox to unite the apostolic churches as it seems they once were? anything?


-ray

Dear Ray,

You cannot imagine the pleasure I received when reading Frederica Matthews article. I am not a fan of hers, and paid very little attention to what she was saying. What I did pay attention to was what she did not say.

It seems everyone wants to obey some sort of authority figure. Frederica fills that bill, so by her not mentioning the 'Filioque', the infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, etc., these common attacks on the RCC by oppositional Orthodox will now gradually be removed from their consciousness.

Without realizing it, she has taken away all the common means of opposition and unfolded one that very few will fully comprehend.

Whatever Orthodox are in opposition to unity are now being left weaponless.

Zenovia