Fr J,

I hope you don't mind my copying your words to *still* another thread, but I liked what you say here so much that I wanted as many people as possible to see it. Also, I feel that the subject deserves a thread of its own.

I think the biggest problem we face is really the fact that first of all, it is an undisputed Patristic teaching that the true Church is both visible and undivided, and then--both sides of the schism have traditionally insisted that they alone are that true Church.

At Vatican II, Rome took a major step away from this position by admitting the possibility of division "within" the Church. This notion is still rejected by some in the West as heretical, especially since it goes against the clear teaching of Pius XI in Mortalium Animos and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Nevertheless, such historic realities as the fact that the Melkite Church maintained a tenuous union with both Rome and Constantinople for nearly 700 years can help us to see this issue from a different perspective.

Things are not always as they seem, and the truth of God will always transcend our attempts to express it in human words. As you have said, we cannot presume to know what the Fathers of a future council will declare, but we can help to prepare for that council by having a change of heart and embracing each other in Christian brotherhood and charity.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Good Morning, Richard.

You bring up an objection that I am unfamiliar with. Could you expand on this? Is there a specific citation in LG or elsewhere that some oppose?

I am on a pretty steep learning curve on this board--and really enjoying it.

Thanks,

Fr. J.

Humility!
Stephanos I

Q: What will it take to reunite the Churches?

A: An act of God.

I agree with Zan but I add:

A common enemy.

With all due respect, Deacon Richard, I am not aware that the Catholic Church has ever authoritatively issued anything that says that a division does, or could, exist within the Church.

I believe one only has to go back to Dominus Iesus (2000), issued well after the close of the Second Vatican Council and authored by the present pope himself as head of the CDF, to find the following:

"Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: 'a single Catholic and apostolic Church'.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking."

Regards to all,
Robster

Amen. Amen, Amen.
I have been trying to point this fact out on this forum for years now.
There can be no divisiong withing the Church. Unity is the nature of the Church.
Stephnos I

Robster,

Read further down the document Dominus Iesus and their you will find the Church clears up their definition of "Church". That definition is more inclusive to include the Orthodox.

Ray,

I tend to not think that is the case, as there is an absence of unity between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. I think this contention is further re-enforced by the CDF's summer 2007 statement which declared that the subsistence of Christ's Church refers solely to the Catholic Church.

Regards to all,
Robster

Based on my reading of the CDF documents, I have to say that I think that Rob's interpretation is correct.

Joe

I'll make a few comments. Although I was born Catholic, I am Orthodox and I have no problem with Catholic / Orthodox disunity. The concept of church unity is an artificial construct of the Emperor Constantine to to have one unified, state religion to replace paganism. In fact, disunion and dislike between various Christian sects was the norm during antiquity. In fact, Julian II, Constantine's nephew, encouraged disunity. The great fourth century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus notes, "Utque dsipositorum robaret effectum, dissidentes Christianorum antistites cum plebe discissa in palatium intromissis, menebat civilius, ut discordiis consopitis, quisque nullo vetante, religioni suae serviret intrepidus. Quod agebat ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentia, non timeret unianimantem postea plebem, nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum expertus." (22.5.3-4) "[Julian]...summoned to the palace the bishop of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, and the people, who also were at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs. On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one. another." Ammianus could be speaking of today's Church including all sects. Nothing has changed in my judgment. I apologize if some find the citation bothersome, but you can not teach an old dog new tricks! The last sentence in Ammianus says it all.

John I would totally disagree with you, from a NT point of view the unity is one of the essences of the Church, along with , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Stephanos I

Stephanos, I should have prefaced my comments with the phrase, "In my opinion." As a professional Roman historian, I think Ammianus, who was there, got it right. Let us agree to disagree.

John, there is no doubt that the Emperor wanted to control religion as a means of unifying and controlling the empire. This is true for the English Reformation, Gaulicanism and other similar church-state systems.

However, the theological origin of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is not imperial but Gospel. Here is a quote form the last third of the High Priestly Prayer of Christ on the night before he died as recounted in John's Gospel:



As Christians, we cannot afford to be cynical about the faith, the Church or the future, but rather live in the hope which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, not a hope based on sure evidence but a supernatural hope that rooted in faith and gives forth in charity. Ecumenical relations are not primarily about politics or our own wishes but cooperation with the divine plan and each becoming an agent of the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Real, corporate, organic unity is not an option but a Gospel imperative.

Acceptance that both would probably continue on as they are.