Recently, RayK posted a thread about starting a new lay website, and perhaps a new lay movement, in order to further union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

I disagree with this. I'm not trying to criticize only RayK's suggestion. I'm also criticizing the whole idea of pushing for immediate reunion.

I do not support the reunion of the Western and Eastern Churches now. There is too much ignorance of the East in the West for reunion now. There is too much bitterness towards the West in the East for reunion now. The theologies and practices have grown independent of each other too much for reunion now.

In other words, the Church has been divorced for a thousand years. The underlying problems long predate the separation of 1054. Indeed, in my opinion, many of the problems can be traced to a difference in personality between East and West, as reflected (and compounded) by differences in language and thought that goes all the way back to the founding fathers of Western and Eastern Christendom. For centuries, like in a marriage, there was a harmony between the two personalities. But then, over time, the two sides grew apart. Then, they split; and for a thousand years they have each been saying the other is wrong and they are right and so on. Real divorces between two human beings are messy enough, and they take years to sort out and to achieve a measure of civility. But a divorce of a thousand years ?

Reunion now? Reunion with what, of what, if there is no true repentance? And how can there be true repentance without true knowledge and true understanding, of ourselves as well as of the other? And how can there be any of these, if now there is widespread ignorance and bitterness of each other and if there is pride in both?

The separation of the Churches will take *time* to heal.

It will also take the official agreement of the bishops.

It will also, probably, take more mixing of the peoples themselves. Most of the Christian East is in the East; most of the Christian West is in the West; and how can we be reunited, after a thousand year divorce, if our peoples can actually **be** with each and get to know each other? The internet helps --tremendously-- but it is not the same as physically being with each other.

In the USA, perhaps when the Orthodox convert enough Catholics and Protestants that people take notice, perhaps *then* there will be a real dialogue between east and West: because the “other” will then be our inlaws, nephews and grandkids!

Etc.

And so, I do not support reunion now.

Instead, I support more of what we are doing at this Forum. Then, I support sharing what we have learned with our respective Churches and communities. Most of all, I support personal sanctity: as example and enablement of the ultimate reunion in Christ. We are not the reunion committee. We are the yeast in our respective loaves, our respective Churches. Hopefully, with our effort and with the leadership of the hierarchs, our Churches will rise together, like rising loaves of bread, and, one day, become one Church, one Body in Christ.

Comments?

--John

I think the loaves of bread - Catholic and Orthodox - have been in the oven long enough. It's time we broke bread together.

In the long run, it's not going to be the hierarchy who will have the most impact in bringing about reunion, but it will be the parishioners of both churches who will bring all of us closer together by reaching out to one another through attending each other's church dinners, bazaars, malankas, baklava socials, holupki dinners, etc. and yes, even attending each other's church services. We've started here in Northeastern Pennsylvania and the results have been impressive.

Let's celebrate all that we have in common and trust one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ and see ourselves as a "family" with a common heritage.

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Vike!

As with any divorce, the sooner the two sides stop blaming each other, stop demanding apologies from the other side, start accepting each other where they are, the sooner healing can begin.

In the big picture of things,if the two largest groups of Christians are still fighting after 1000 years over who is right and who is wrong, both have lost credibility. Both sides have failed. Both sides from the TOP DOWN have a responsibility to make reconciliation a top priority.

What IS top priority instead? Ritual? Power? Titles? Money? Holding on to these sins for centuries has not led to good. If little old ladies and children can see this why can't our 'leaders'?

Ray, if your heart tells you to start this site then start. The opposition does not lie with the majority of people in the pews. Children aren't born choosing Orthodoxy or Catholicism. They are taught. Unfortunately the longer our Christian witness goes on as it has the more likely the children will choose nothing at all.

Sam

Dear John you said:

"I disagree with this. I'm not trying to criticize only RayK's suggestion. I'm also criticizing the whole idea of pushing for immediate reunion."

I say:

Actually I believe that Ray meant an immediate 'start' towards a reunion. A complete reunion might take years, or maybe a decade. The start though should be immediate. Who knows? Ray may be a saint and the Holy Spirit may be leading him and guiding him through the whole process...with us following.

Never underestimate our Lord.

Zenovia

harmon 3110 said: Dear John: I believe you are correct when you say what is quoted above, however I truly believe that it is necessary that NOW lay people, both from the East and the West, know each other, overcome their differences and see how complementary we are.

We all know, as you well stated, that pride has been the biggest stumbling block in this process, but to know each other, accept each other and most important of all FORGIVE each other will help to overcome said stumbling block.

We, as lay people, can not, and must not forget ever that we are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and NEED to work together for the Kingdom.

My two cents here....

God Bless

Amen, Sam. We need to just "get over ourselves", as my teenage niece would say...

Dear Bernardo and everyone else who was kind enough to respond to my post,


Thank you. I sincerely mean that.

Yet, I also sincerely disagree with you.

Yes, there must be forgiveness between Christian East and Christian West. Yes, there must be more interaction between the laity of the Christian East and West. Yes, the sin of pride is the greatest obstacle to eventual reunion. But, pride and pains are not the only obstacles to reunion.

We --Catholics and Orthodox-- really are different. Our differences are not just cosmetic.

For example, Catholics have a very different view of theology (almost as an academic subject) than the Orthodox (who see it more as a system of articulating mystical experience). That is a big difference, and it effects the whole mindset of our respective Churches. And that is a big hurdle to reunion.

For another example, Catholics have changed their Divine Liturgy substantially over the last 1000 years, but the Orthodox have kept pretty much the same Divine Liturgy that St. John Chrysostom wrote about 1650 years ago. Liturgy and changes to it are BIG issues to people: as was recently evidenced at threads at this Forum about a certain new translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Our differences in liturgy (EO, RC, EC) are huge hurdles to reunion.

For another example, there is the filioque. It has been well-discussed in previous threads, so I won't renew it here. I will say, however, that it really has shaped the spirituality of both Churches: by its presence in the West and by its absence in the East. It has shaped views of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit and sanctification. Hence, the filioque is an enormous hurdle to reunion.

And so on.

Look: I love both the Christian East and the Christian West. I hope that one day the two will be reunited again. But it's going to take a lot more than bishops making an agreement or laity making a new website or visiting each others' liturgies (worthy as those actions are). It's going to take fundamental change in both Eastern and Western Christianity, probably to their respective cores.

Hence, I increasingly wonder *IF* reunion is possible between the Catholics and the Orthodox (outside of an outright miracle). I increasingly wonder if Christian East and Christian West are so different that they cannot reunite without destroying themselves -- i.e., without destroying what makes them uniquely themselves-- in the process. (I also wonder the same about reuniting Catholics and Protestants.) Thus, I increasingly wonder if the only realistic reunion is the agreement to disagree, to live next to each respectfully and in peace but separately. It kind of reminds me of divorced couples. They almost never reunite, but sometimes they can learn to get along with each other, by showing each other decency and respect, while living separate lives.

--John

Do any of you ever consider what God wills?
Stephanos I

Yes; yes I do. And, I'm sure the vast majority, if not all, of the good people who post here at this Forum also consider what God's wills. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here, reading and praying and pondering and posting and trying to figure out God's will in this mess that we human beings have made for ourselves by a divided Church. And that is why we are discussing how best to fulfill God's will that we "might all be one" in the practical, nitty-gritty realities of reunion.

--John

Surely you jest.

My 'vision' is really quite pratical. Like a mechanic who looks at an engine and figuures out what parts are not functioning the way they were dsigned to function.

Now if the good Lord wants to support me with his Providence - after that - we can talk about my sainthood

-ray

John, your comments are most welcomed - most welcomed. I have sometimes said that the people who help me the most are those who disagree with me. By disagreeing with me you nudge me to better focus. You – help adjust – my head. If you see something better than I – I can use your eyes.

Why should you treat me any better than my wife (who loves me!)?? 

>Instead, I support more of what we are doing at this Forum.

In the ultimate, that is my goal. I just want to expand it (but not here at this safe and blessed island) and nudge the cooperation between laity - to others.

Any nudge of the hierarchy is recognized to be a possible secondary effect. That should not be ignored. And I should not be the prime activity of the site. One has to be very very careful with that aspect or it will backfire.


Someone else said …

>As with any divorce, the sooner the two sides stop blaming each other,
> stop demanding apologies from the other side, start accepting each
> other where they are, the sooner healing can begin.

This is a great assessment – and it is the one that is most visible. And it needs to be done at least for our own sanctification as charity (a virtue each of us needs to continue to build) requires it.

However – if it were the real reason for continued dis-union – than re-union would have been done by now.

If differences in theology were the real reason than re-union would have been done by now.

The hierarchy of each church is human – humans in progress of sanctification.

I am found of saying the Jesus (Providence) has guided his Church – despite the sins and failures of the humans he entrusted it to.

I am guessing that the majority of hierarchy in all churches- across all history – were not elevated to sainthood. If they had been – we would be reunited by now.

So it is real simple that the dis-unity of the church at the human level – is caused by – humans. The sins (intentional or unintentional) and failures of charity and trust in Providence. Lack of virtue. And all the reasons of ‘lack’ by which the majority of hierarchy are not raised to sainthood.

We respect the office of all hierarchy – and assume them to be holy – but many of them lack personal holiness. That is no secret. Certainly the mishandling of pedophile priests in the RC indicates a great lack of even common sensne for many Catholic bishops. What WERE they thinking!!!??

The major reason that the church remains divided is – economics.

Let me say that again.

The real – major reason – as to why the churches remain dis-united is – economics.

Property. The flow of money from the flock to some of these churches. Which ones? That is not mine to say.

The business side of religion. We recoil at that thought. But there is reality.

We would like to think that every hierarch is personally holy = but that is just a nice thought. We would like to think that we are guided by all saints – but we know that is not true.

Intentional or not – they make – business decisions.

And there is nothing I or any small group of ‘we’ can do to change that.

-------------------

The case of the crocked Vatican banker who committed suicide?

The recent Patriarch of Jerulsaum for leasing church lands?

The snub of Moscow on John Paul because he was instrumental in the World Court in having so many ethics churches (confiscated and given to Moscow by the Communists) returned to ethnic churches?

How many of the sins of hierarch should we list? They do the same type of sins that we laity do. They have confessors.

How often do a John Paul II come along???

Not often. That is reality. Each priest and hierarch is in need of sanctification as well as each lay person.

Even the many of the early church fathers (not the ones we read) fought like cats and dogs over territory.

Today the major problem is - revenues.

Here… read this carefully at the web site of the Ecumenical Patriarch…
http://www.ec-patr.gr/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en
(a summary would be that according to Orthodox cannons each particular church must remain within their own geographical area – and none have for so long…. )

Why do they break cannon? Figure it out. Territory in wealthier counties is more in the coffer – more bills paid – better expansion.

Why is there no Orthodox Church of American approved? Who gets all that flow of money? Who gets their flowing money stopped from the generous amount flowing from American now to the ethic churches of the old country – to nothing?

Enough said.

There is a business side to the human aspect of the church. And decisions have to make – business – sense – for running the economic portion of church organization. A church in poverty has little impact on the world. Can not purchase media – nor print books – no meet heads of State/// etc.. etc…

And so the hierarchy (all and every) is a mix of holiness served up by humans with faults.

The division of the churches is caused and continued by – the faults and weaknesses of the hierarchy involved.

Ain’t noting any of us can do about that. And all the ecumenical conferences over the wording of theology will not make progress under such conditions.

Of course… not all hierarchy is to fault of blame. Only enough to make it impossible for the rest.

These considerations are very influential on the decisions of the higher ups. It is only human and good management to take all things into consideration. It is not perfect holiness – but we do the same – yes? We are not saints either – no?

Responsibilities, pressures, etc… at the top make re-union – impossible currently…. At the top.

Do you see – the ‘catch 22’ here?? The chicken or the egg??

Doing God work takes money – and getting money comes from doing God’s work. A poor man can only spead the gospel so far. Yet the church must spear it very far.

Catch 22.

In fact – it looks to me almost like God put that Catch 22 in there himself. It is just the human condition.

And ALL THAT – is not a problem here at the bottom 

We have what one well placed Orthodox priest described to me as “the freedom of the laity”.


The more that union takes place here at the bottom – the more will the top be receptive to union. This is more true in the Orthodox world where the popular opinion of the mass of laity has real impact on the hierarchy.

Catholic revenues are wider spread – bigger based. Better invested. Smart bankers.

What did Jesus say “be pure of heart – but wise as serpents.”??

Well here is the ‘wise as serpents’ part.

All the way around and under every consideration – eventual re-union will come from a groundswell at the bottom. And (sorry to say) the shrinking of Christendom taking place is all the more pressure for the remainder of Christianity to unite.

Forcing unity at the top – without wide laity support – will certainly fail. If reunion was announce tomorrow – the width of the laity still holing divisional beliefs – would break such an ‘official’ union apart.

So again – the ground swell must be – begun – to grow – and it must grow or no re-union will ever take place.

So everything – everything – points to – we should make real efforts at the bottom – to know about each other and understand each other.

Forget – discussions on theology. Visit each others churches instead. Forget preaching your own beliefs – ask “what is your belief” and shut up and really listen and try to understand that other church where Jesus lives also. We don’t have to say “I agree” all we have to come to is “Oh… I understand.”

I am reminded right now of a theologian I heard on TV speak about John Paul – and he said that the most impressive trait about him was his super ability to – listen. You could talk and talk and talk – and John Paul would – listen to it all without a word… and then he would take a minute (now he ws formulating a response – not doing that while you were talking) and he would respond in just a few words.

Listening is like contemplation – quite the mind – still the inner voice of the mind – wait – don’t begin formulating a response until you have heard all of it. That is what we need to do for each other.

As well as regards God ... we can not love what we do not understand. We can not love what we do not know (now that is simple). Be it God or other humans. Only when we understand is it possible to have –genuine- love.

The bottom – bottom – bottom line to anything – is that we need to do what our conscience tells us to do. And right now my conscience is telling me that when I die – this would be a good thing to have in my hands at the gate. The effort if not even the success.

I got three catholic sons for sale – can I get a bid of three orthodox daughters??


(how did I do??)

-ray

Ray,

Thank you for your patience and open-mindedness to my disagreements. I admire your desire for reunion.

However, I still respectfully disagree with you. I respectfully think that you are overlooking the realities of the disunion.

The realities of the disunion are not solely or even mostly about money.

The realities of the disunion is that the two halves of the Church became proud, and they grew apart, and they divorced, and they have become very different in the 1000 years since their divorce.

Yes, the disunion was caused by pride.

However, I increasingly wonder if humility and mutual forgiveness is not enough for reunion. I increasingly wonder if we (Catholics and Orthodox) have become simply too different to be reunited into one Church organization. I increasingly wonder if we are now so different that the only real reunion possible is to agree to disagree and to live separate lives and to show each other decency and respect.

Allow me to illustrate. Yes, Catholics and Orthodox share a common patrimony of the first 1000 years of Christianity. Yes, we share sacramental operations of grace and so on. Yes, we are "more or less" the same in many things. Yet, as Vladimir Lossky pointed out, in his introduction to "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church," it is precisely that "more or less" which matters so very, very much. It is the result of different choices and different emphases on the same patrimony that generated and grew two different spiritualities. Hence, even the same patrimony of the first 1000 years is now viewed very differently by the two Churches. Now, for example, even though Catholics and Orthodox both share St. Augustine and St. Basil (and so on) in their mutual patrimony, the two Churches emphasize them differently and regard them differently. Now, for example, the "same" (?) sacraments are conducted differently, understood differently, experienced differently, etc. In brief, East and West both agree on Christ, but they disagree on the Holy Spirit, and hence on sanctification, and, in short, on the inner issues of salvation. And, what is interior is eventually expressed exteriorly. Hence, our exterior forms of Church organization, liturgy, creed and so on are very different too. In sum, in the words of Lossky (quoting someone else), "We have become different men."

Here is another example. You mentioned that the solution to reunion is to skip discussing theology in favor of visiting each others' Divine Liturgy. Your suggestion seems to make sense. Yet, it illustrates the very difference I am talking about. For a Westerner, theology is generally a dry, dull subject fit only for scholars and philosophers. It is knowledge about God, in highly logical and specialized language. For an Easterner, however, this is a totally wrong view of theology. For an Easterner, theology is literally what the word means: knowledge of God. Note the difference, small but real: not knowledge about God (as in the West) but instead knowledge of God. What is even more interesting is that the East says that, basically, there can be no “knowledge” of God because God is so infinitely beyond us that He is beyond human knowledge. He is a Mystery. Yet, God is “knowable” by direct, personal experience. Hence, the Western view of theology makes a polite nod toward the idea that God is beyond our limited human understanding -- and then proceeds to try to understand Him like we would try to understand anything else: scientifically and philosophically. Meanwhile, the East starts with the unknowability of God --with the Mystery-- and it keeps the Mystery, precisely because it tries to receive and to live and become united with the Mystery. (In other words, Western theology is cataphatic; Eastern theology is apophatic.) Hence, Western theology is generally an intellectual exercise only available to those who are fully trained specialists. Eastern theology is practical mysticism, and it is available to everyone, everyday and especially at every Sunday liturgy. Thus, Westerners and Easterners leave their respective liturgies with the grace of God, but they understand and experience their liturgies very differently, because they understand the process of sanctification very differently, because they understand the Trinity very differently, because they understand theology itself very differently: as academic subject for specialists (Western view) or as the practicalities for living in union with the living God (Eastern view). In the West, theology is a subject; in the East, theology is theosis. Again, “we have become different men.”

The point is this. We are so different that we might not be able to reunify into one Church as most people (including myself) have so far imagined.

By the way, that raises another issue that is woefully unconsidered by the supporters of "reunion now" : Just what would this reunited Church be like?

Catholic? The Orthodox would object.

Orthodox? The Catholics would object.

In each case, the objection would not be solely or mostly out of pride. Instead, most of the objection would be about giving up crucial, vital parts of ourselves that makes us ourselves. Our differences are not points of contention that can be negotiated away like in a contract negotiation. Our differences are about who and what we are.

Hence the hybrid model is suggested by some: Eastern Catholicism. Dan Lauffer has valiantly argued that the reunited Church would look something like the current Eastern Catholic Churches. I used to agree with that view.

However, I increasingly doubt that the Eastern Catholic model is really a model at all of reunion.

Increasingly, it seems to me that the Eastern Catholic model of reunion it is simply another model of how to be Catholic. To be Catholic means to support the primacy of the pope, a theology which supports that contention, and a theology which flows from that contention. Well, the contention of papal primacy --and all the theology that goes in and out of that-- is basically unacceptable to the Orthodox. That is true whether the Catholics are wearing Latin robes or Byzantine robes: it is still the same Catholic belief in papal primacy and the theology that goes into that and flows from that. Catholic is Catholic --pope and all-- whether it is Latin Rite or eastern Rite.

As an illustration of what I mean, there is the filioque. Eastern Catholics are happy now that the pope now gives them permission to not say the filioque. The Orthodox find unacceptable the very source of this joy: papal permission to not say something that is arguably heretical.

Etc.

What then? If the Orthodox will not become Catholic, and the Catholics will not become Orthodox, and if Eastern Catholicism is ultimately another form of Catholicism (and thus unacceptable to the Orthodox as a model of reunion), what would this reunited Church actually be like?

I increasingly think that Orthodoxy and Catholicism (including Eastern Catholicism) can only be “united” in the sense of charity. I increasingly think that we are too different to be reunited into a single organization. And hence, I increasingly think that the only genuine reunion that is possible is for both Catholics and Orthodox to live separate lives while respecting each other and treating each other decently.

--John

Dear John,

I think your understanding of "Western" vs. "Eastern" theology has been shaped by reading polemics. It doesn't fit into those easy and convenient categories.

Western Theology is cataphatic? Have you read Aquinas? He would most vigorously disagree with you. Let me give you a concrete example. In the Summa Contra Gentiles, immediately after he proves that there must be a first cause, which everyone calls God, he says this:

"Now, in considering the divine substance, we should especially make use of the method of remotion (apophasis). For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not. . .

. . . And thus, proceeding in order, by such negations God will be distinghuished from all that He is not. Finally, there will then be a proper consideration of God's substance when He will be known as distinct from al things. Yet, this knowledge will not be perfect, since it will not tell us what God is in Himself." (SCG I.14)

May I suggest you read at least the introductory chapters of A.N. Williams "The Ground of Union" so that you can see how in both East and West, our view of the other's theology (and indeed our own) has been too often shaped into a caricature by polemics?

Dear John,

Your post brings up many realities IF one views union as being an administratively united Church.

I think that a more realistic view of a 'unified' Church is that which was pretty much set forth in writings of Pope JPII, of blessed memory, which I vaguely remember....that we would both continue *as we are*, with the only difference being that of a 'spiritual' COMMUNION. This 'spiritual' communion would recognize the Bishop of Rome as being the elder Patriarch and first among equals, as was in the first Church, and as pastor of his huge flock. This 'spiritual' communion would have worked out the kinks of theology so as to proclaim us united enough to partake of the Eucharist in each other's church.

For your information, the Ecumenical Patriarch was one step away from this reality (shared Eucharist) in the 1990's until the fall of communism and some disputes about church property in Ukraine.

According to the Balamand Agreement of the 1990's between the EP and Pope JPII, we are to consider each other 'sister churches'. This is an important first step and just one step away from the reality of *spiritual* communion with the Pope of Rome. To desire anything more, such as when the Orthodox say: "The RC are welcome to become Orthodox" (or vice-versa) is foolish. The different manner of Eastern and Western worship and even the Eucharist, were existent, side by side, EVEN in the early *united* Church.

It is this 'spiritual' communion that I believe Ray and others are striving for. It is the acknowledgment of the validity and grace of each other that will keep us from prosletyzing...(which was agreed upon in Balamand too) and from speaking in a judgmental manner of the other.

However, just as today, one would have to stick to the disciplines, traditions, and realities of a particular church.

With this type of unity, the world and our Christ that died on the Cross for His Church would see us as a loving-- albeit, differing-- entity of spiritual love and unity.

Just some thoughts,
Alice, (an Orthodox, who has been accused of 'hating the Orthodox' by a brother here because of love and understanding of the West!-- and if that doesn't show the need for reconciliation in Christ's Body, the Church, then I don't know what does! )

P.S. What we have to understand is our own limitations, and that we are only called to do what Christ said, to LOVE one another, and here is where I will extol the beauty of TRUE Eastern Orthodox thought, which I love: we also need to humble ourselves to each other and recognize the icon of Christ and holiness in one another...the rest, if we follow His commandment, and if we pray for His Will, WILL be done by the Holy Spirit, and we should, in our quest, never underestimate that power!

Dear Alice,

Once again, you are a vehicle for true wisdom. I thank you.

Yes, that kind of reunion I can accept: precisely because it recognizes our real differences yet affirms that we have enough substance in common to be in communion with each other.

Indeed, Alex posted some very good points along those lines at http://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001379;p=1 However, it wasn't until your post that I could see the bigger picture. Thank you.

--John