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

This a key issue.

The Catholics want reunion under the pope, and the Catholics have been trying to pursue that with genuine friendliness for the last several decades.

But what of the Orthodox? How do they want reunion with Catholics? Do they want reunion with the Catholics? I do not know. I suspect that some Orthodox do not want reunion because they hate the Catholics. I suspect that others want reunion only if the Catholics become Orthodox. I suspect others don't know what reunion would be like, but they want it anyway because they believe that Christ wants it. And then I suspect that there are others who don't want reunion because they think it is basically impossible because we are too different; but they do want to get along with Catholics as good neighbors.

--John

My understanding is this traces to the objection to the policies of Patriach Sergey and his relationship with the Soviets. I don't know enough about the situation to say if Patriarch Sergey cut them off for challenging his authority or if they severed communion because they felt he had compromised the faith.

CCC 816.

That's too bad, I usually very much enjoy FMG. She is a persistent and loud voice for the pro-life movement within Orthodoxy which otherwise shamefully tends to be rather muted. Father Gregory and Khouria Frederica have built a vibrant parish and I think have done a lot to help re-cast the image of Orthodoxy not as an ethnic enclave but as a church open to and for all people.

It was an Op ed piece for heavens sake in the Wall Street Journal limited to a certain amount of space. Do you think most readers of the WSJ would have a handle on created grace, or the Filioque or what infallibility means in relations to church councils or the structure of the church? I don't.

Uh, uh huh.

Andrew

AMM:

You wrote:
This is incompatible with CCC 815 from which I quoted earlier. You refer to 816.

It is an enormous stretch to read your idea into this paragraph.

When better informed you might like to reconsider your comments on what unity means, as well as what symbolizes it within the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

I just read sections 815 and 816 of the Catholic Catechism. I would say that they are both accurate for Catholic unity, but they both need to be read in the context each other and of the entire chapter on unity (sections 813 - 822). To summarize that chapter: (1) The unity of the Catholic Church comes from the Triune God, through Christ and by the Holy Spirit, in the people, by unity of faith, worship, apostolic succession, and the pope. (2) To preserve and spread this unity, the Church must continually renew itself by conversion of heart, prayer in common, fraternal knowledge of each other (emphasis mine), ecumenical formation, theological and other dialogue, and collaboration in service. That chapter, all together, seems to me to be a good statement of how the Catholic Church understands its unity: not only as a stasis but also as a vocation.

That terible thing - is already here.

A growing anti-Christian sentiment and where any and all religion - is seen as the cause - of all world problems. Radical Islam, Zionist Jews, fanatical Christians - all lumped together as "the real problem".

-ray

Ms Matthews-Green is a very nice lady; I had the privilege of meeting her once and conversing.
On this she is way off, though.
Orthodox posters on this forum frequently disagree, and claim that one opinion or the other is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. I have had Orthodox tell me, when I point out that the Ecumenical Patriarch holds an opinion they have just condemned as "not Orthodox" that he is not really Orthodox!
Say what you will about the state of the Catholic Church, it is not at all difficult to know what its authentic teaching is.
-Daniel

Dear Daniel,

Just a point here that there are many traditional Roman Catholics who, like traditional Orthodox, have had a LOT to say about Pope John Paul the Great, often accusing him of betraying this or that aspect of the Catholic tradition (as you well know).

I myself have always had difficulty swallowing their criticism of his addition of the Luminous Mysteries . . . arghhh, sorry, excuse me.

Both Churches have traditional members who think they know better than their hierarchies what the Tradition of the Church is.

Frederica's commentary is an accurate reflection of what most Orthodox theologians and Church leaders would say about the matter.

Our job is not to try to discredit someone who has the scholarly and spiritual reputation that she does, but to try and see how progress in overcoming the real problems can be had.

Alex

Dear Zenovia,

I am a bit confused by this post so I pose you this question sincerely:

Are you saying that in other words, the pillars of Orthodoxy, St Photios, St Mark of Ephesus, and St Gregory Palamas, were all basically wrong, mistaken, or misguided, maybe not intentionally but objectively speaking, and that all along Orthodox should have just stuck with the Catholics because none of these issues constitute a true difference in faith?

I used to believe the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were basically saying the same thing and that unity could be achieved if the "mean" Orthodox would stop being so "stubborn." But somehow it was always the Orthodox who end up looking stupid, backwards, ignorant, and wrong in this approach. When I realized the Orthodox know exactly what they are saying and that what they are saying seems more consistent with the early church (homoousios vs homoiousios produced a huge church division because words ultimately do matter) I realized I had to pick one or the other. I just don't see how one can respect the traditions of both churches and then say that they are either both wrong because for the past 1000 years they couldn't figure out they were saying the same thing, or that Orthodox are basically intransigent Easterners who with a little education will come around. I am not accusing you of this, I am just saying I have encountered the sentiment many times.

So how would you proceed with unity talks without casting doubt on the Orthodox saints and fathers of the past, is the question I am posing I guess.

Anastasios

Does this problem trouble your views on the EO / OO schism ?

Yes, it did, which is why my views have changed on that issue as well. Instead of looking in the past and saying that previous generations were either ignorant or wrong, I now try to take people on their words and deeds because otherwise I end up being the judge of others more holy and knowledgeable than I.

Anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Don't sell yourself short, Big Guy!

Alex

So has your attitude become more conciliatory with the OO's or less?

This is nice. And good advice for the FMG, better to hear what Catholic Church says it means by "unity".

Dear djs,

You are a dangerous enemy to have, er, Friend!

Alex

I for one have never been a fan of FMG just for the record. As far as EO/OO I was previously of the opinion that the Synod of Chalcedon's fathers didn't understand the OO fathers and vice-versa. Having read up on the Synod and read some of the documents floating around at the time, I can't come to that conclusion. I do believe that some progress towards mutual understanding has occurred subsequently and for this reason I am still wishful for a EO/OO reunion, but certainly only one based in truth and real discussion, not post-modern plays on words.

Anastasios

Alex, the number of people that I view as enemies is zero.

And I certainly had no enmity in my questions to Anastasios. I always thought there was a dissonance between his very strict perspectices of Catholic/EO schism and highly conciliatory ones on the EO/OO schism. The dissonance has apparently resolved itself, although not in what I would view as the best way.

Anastasios, what are a post-modern plays in words - and what does this mean in the context of taking people at their word?