It is my impression that all efforts for union between the "Orthodox' and "Catholic" churches have been from the West. Are there any Eastern Orthodox Clergy, groups, theologians, etc. actively looking for solutions for unity, much like the late Archbishop Zoghby tried? Is unity always going to be a one sided agenda?

Can anyone refer any books or articles written by from the Orthodox side that brings any helpful ideas (other than the Pope denounce all power and Catholic deny the Faith that was handed to them stuff) to a Eucharistic communion between East and West?

Mike

The Kyivan Church Study Group was formed by Roman and Greek Catholic as well as Ukrainian Orthodox and representatives from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. A series of papers appeared in Logos and Eastern Churches Journal from those encounters. It would be wonderful to start it up again.

Unity can occur when the Church of Rome returns to the Orthodox faith. Even the most ecumenically minded hierarchs and theologians will not (and cannot) push for union as long as Rome claims to have universal jurisdiction over the Church. There can be no compromise of the Orthodox faith. And even if certain hierarchs say that there is virtually nothing separating us (though I haven't heard any say this), the holy fathers of Mt. Athos, the pious laity, and the hierarchs of the other jurisdictions would raise their voice and oppose them.

Joe

This is like asking a Black man to become Caucasian. It is not going to happen, does that mean they don't both belong to the one Human race? Can't Catholic and Orthodox share Eucharistic Communion and claim to both be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?(perhaps with different ways of explaining doctrine due to various reasons).





I believe that Pope Benedict has wrote that he would like to return to the Model of the Papacy from the First Millennium. What would Orthodox say this model would looks like?

I know that scripture and Patristic writings allude to the Seat of Peter as having Primacy and a Universal responsibility for the entire Church, by refusing to be in communion with Rome is that not compromising Orthodoxy?




More proof that a Leader of the Church that is above Jurisdictions is needed. Otherwise, who speaks for what's best for Orthodoxy, if two Jurisdictions are in disagreement, who decides who is right?

Father Deacon, thank you for the resource, and I pray that such encounters do take place again soon.

Something about the Church Study Group being discussed

http://www.ecumenicalstudies.org.ua/eng/fellowship/kyivan_church_study_group

There have been times when there were more than one Pope. One thinks of the Great Western Schism when several Popes were claiming to be the real one. That went on for 40 years in the 14th century.

There were a whole mass of Popes...
Urban VI
Clement VII
Alexander IV
John XXIII
Benedict XIII
Gregory XII

Even the Saints could not determine who was the real Pope. St Catherine of Siena said it was Urban, but St Vincent Ferrer said it was Clement.



Who decided what was right? Not the warring Popes but a Council of the Church. In those days a Council was still seen as a hgher authority than a Pope. It was the Council of Florence who got rid of all the Popes (even the legitimate ones) and elected another Pope entirely - Martin V.

So I guess that answer is that Councils of bishops decide in a concilar fashion. We have the New Testament example of this way of settling things when there are disputes from the Council of Jerusalem and the way the holy Apostles showed us.

My apologies, Father, I saw your note about off topic posts and thought I should start a new thread on the off-theme topic with Mike. So I did that but when I came back to delete the post above it told me the time had expired to do that. Please delete it if you like.

Strange, now I cannot find the new thread I created to deal with the theme (two messages above) which is off-topic for here. Father, did you move it or delete it? Or do you think that the topic is within the parameters of this thread? <confused... >

Canon 34 of the apostolic canons.

Canon 34 reads as follows:

The bishops of every country ought to know who is the first among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him [i.e., the first] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Father Ambrose:

Father bless!!

RE: confused.

There are glitches with the software that the administrators hope to have corrected. Things seem to disappear once in awhile and things posted sometimes don't register on the general list.

Asking for your blessing and continued holy prayers,

BOB

For me personally, it's pretty simple. There are things that the RCC holds as doctrine and considers critical that I don't. I'm not particularly interested in forcing anyone to change or arguing them in to believing something they don't. I would happily visit a Catholic Church, but wouldn't take communion if there.

Perhaps writ large, that's how many people feel, and maybe that's why there is a perceived disinterest.

Disinterest? Our Lord wanted his followers to be united as one, and I think that Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches should be working toward reconciliation as a number one priority.

As I perceive it, the catholic Church has been leading the effort, and I was hoping that there were Orthodox groups, clergy or theologians that are actively working to progress this important issue, like many Catholic leaders have.



I don't see the the Catholic Church changing their dogmatic doctrines nor do I think that the Orthodox Churches need to either. I also don't think that the Orthodox Churches will ever be willing to accept Primacy from Rome (Too much time has past - too much power has been acquired since the schism). However, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are apart of the Apostolic Faith, and Christ is present in the Eucharist at each of their alters. Thus, we should should find a way to be in Eucharistic Communion with Each other, and not deny brethren of "sister churches" that follow the Apostolic Faith the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist.



Well, the Catholic Church would be happy to administer the Sacrament to you. However, if I were to go to an Orthodox Church I wouldn't take communion either, not by choice, but because the Orthodox Church says I am not welcomed to. As an Eastern Catholic, I'm not acceptable enough to receive Christ in the Orthodox Church just the Catholic Church.


Again, I think the goal should be a Eucharistic Communion with Each other, while allowing minor differences in our Faith.

Mike,

I'm an Syro-Malankara Catholic (the Catholic Church and the Malankara/Syriac Orthodox Church have [limited intercommunion] declarations and agreements; most especially for weddings and other familial occasions), once I mentioned to a Catholic (Syro-Malabar) priest at a cousin's wedding I attended that I received Eucharist from an Orthodox priest, with the priest's explicit permission - not only did he scold me, but when I mentioned the inter-Communion agreement and the Pope he mumbled something and turned around and walked away into the sacristy.

Great little book by Bishop Kallistos (Ware) Communion and Intercommunion.

It lays out why intercommunion between Churches is not seen as viable by the East.

But Mike, this is precisely the issue. In the Orthodox Church, we do not believe that all of the differences are minor or trivial. We do believe that there are some substantial disagreements about doctrine. Also, you mention the priestly prayer of Christ for unity among his disciples. We interpret that prayer as being a prayer to guarantee unity of faith and life in the Church. We believe that this unity has never been broken because the Church cannot be divided. There is no divided Catholic Church with the west on one side and the east on the other. In Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church of Christ is identical with the visible communion of Orthodox Churches. We reject any kind of branch theory or any theory that says that the Church is invisible or multi-confessional, etc. And we believe this because in the Creed we confess,"I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church." There is one Church and Christ has promised that it shall stand against the gates of hell. The Roman Catholic Church believes the same thing about herself. Just look at the recent CDF documents on the nature of the Church. RC teaching is very clear that the true Church of Christ subsists in the Church which is in communion with/and under Rome and that this one Church is not divided.

The problem is that both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church claim to be exclusively the one, true Church of Christ and how could they claim otherwise? Neither side will be able to compromise on matters that they consider essential. So it is highly unlikely that there will ever be reunion among the Churches. As I mentioned before, even the more ecumenically minded hierarchs will not accept the teachings of Vatican I and II on the papacy. And there doesn't seem to be any way for the Church of Rome to backtrack on that and change its teaching. So it is precisely on this point that we hit a wall. I personally think that the best we can hope for is to cultivate an attitude of mutual respect for the other and guarantee to the other full freedom of conscience and religion. We should continue theological talks even if they never lead to reunion. Because in those talks two things can happen that are beneficial for everyone:

1) We get clarity about the stance of our own church and we also overcome irrational prejudices and polemics

2) We come to be more charitable toward one another and we foster mutual respect.

I think that both of these outcomes of dialogue are essential for us today.

I have to say too that of late there have been a number of potentially controversial threads. Also, I have been studying traditional Orthodox materials in depth and I've come to respect the views of those "strict" Orthodox such as the Athonite Monks, ROCOR, etc. even if I'm not sure that I entirely agree with everything they say. For me, right now, the question of the relationship of Non-Orthodox Christians to the Church is one of intense interest to me and I have not come to any firm conclusions because I can see all of the various arguments being made and that there is some justification for each of them. And I also think that we in the Orthodox Church need to achieve consensus on issues related to the reception of the Non-Orthodox, views of their sacraments, etc. In fact, if we don't achieve a pan-Orthodox consensus on this, we will not be able, as a single church, to move in the direction of unity with the west.

And I confess too that as an ex-Catholic and one who has now lived for some time in each Church and as one who read western spirituality and theology (everything from Augustine and Aquinas to Therese of Liseux, Theresa of Avila, Alphonse de Ligouri and Louis de Monfort and on and on...), I personally have grave concerns about many elements of western Catholic spirituality that have developed since the schism. And this leads to another point that I think is important to make.

Unity cannot be achieved simply by agreeing to a set of doctrines in the abstract. Roman Catholic Christians need to know that when we (Orthodox) see the dissent, the liturgical abuse, the multiple theologies and spiritualities, the lack of fasting discipline, etc. in the western Church, we become reluctant to join up with that Church. As a concrete example let's mention the Church's discipline regarding Holy Communion. In Orthodoxy, even the most generous discipline for receiving communion insists on fasting from midnight, recent confession (my spiritual father says within 4-6 weeks), and prayer. Yet, the fasting discipline today in the west is one hour before receiving communion. If we were in full communion with one another, we would have many people with practically no discipline regarding the reception of communion wanting to receive communion in our churches. For us this would be a difficulty.

I mention all this not to pick on the Roman Catholic Church for we certainly have our own problems in Orthodoxy and we need to get our act together as well. But unity of faith has to be more than simply agreement on paper to a set of doctrines in the abstract. We have to become convinced that we share the same spiritual, sacramental, and theological life. The profound differences between modern Catholic spirituality and Orthodox spirituality are an obstacle to reunion.

Joe

I don't mean this polemically, but really quite honestly, if this is the case what is there to discuss?

I continue to wonder at the same people writing the same thing about the same issue week in and week out - the most common topic being that of unity and whether any disunity exists in the first place. After a few reads of the same material it becomes the theological equivalent of name, rank, and serial number.

As an Eastern Catholic it is more difficult to accept division then if I were RC or EO. Eastern Catholics are simply stuck in the middle, and I believe EC's will eventually be a factor in the uniting of the faith, not a continued cause of division (Contrary to what many Orthodox say).

I certainly do not have any solutions to this 1,000 year old sin, but I know that it should be a priority to heal this wound. Catholic and Orthodox should not continue to ignore the issue, while both claiming to be the True Church. In fact, they both share the Apostolic Faith that was handed to them. I think that the West needs to be reformed in order to rid itself of liberalism. The East needs to remember the Parable of the Mustard Seed, meaning that the church continues to develop and grow and did not reach maturity in the year 1054 AD.

All Christians of Eastern orientation pray in the Divine Liturgy for "Unity in the Faith", lets put or prayers into practice according to the Epistle of St. James 1:22-25



If this is a controversial thread, please forgive me.

Mike, I don't think that anyone is ignoring the issue. But, as I mentioned before, neither Rome nor the Orthodox see the Church as divided in two. From the Roman Catholic side, the answer is for the Orthodox to accept papal jurisdiction and the development of dogma in the West. From the Orthodox side, the answer is for Rome to repudiate papal jurisdiction and many of the doctrinal developments in the west that have occured since the schism. Since Christ said that there can be only one Church, it follows that only one of us is right. Either Rome is right or the Orthodox are right. Any attempt to produce a union based on doctrinal compromise would only show that neither side was right and this would mean that there has been no Church of Christ that has preserved the entire apostolic faith. Orthodox do not believe that we currently share the same apostolic faith. And the situation of the Eastern Catholics cannot be a model for unity as even Rome admits. And also keep in mind that in Orthodoxy we do not accept doctrinal development in the sense that is commonly held by Catholics today. We do not believe that the Church has to "mature" in the faith. The entire apostolic faith was given by the Apostles to the Church and preserved entirely in the Church. Rather than speaking of the development of doctrine, we would say that there is in history the "clarification of doctrine." All of the Orthodox fathers were conscious that even in using new terminology such as "homousion" they were merely defending what had always been taught in the Church. The Church cannot create new dogmas based on the idea that they logically flow from other dogmas. This is why we do not accept the Roman teaching on papal primacy and infallibility. It is why we do not accept the western teaching of purgatory and indulgences and why we do not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Even if all of these things could be considered theoretically orthodox (that is they could be theoretically true), they cannot be made dogmas because they are not found in the apostolic deposit of faith. Now, as a matter of fact we do not think that these doctrines are true. Therefore, from our side we must say that the west needs to reject these doctrines for full unity to occur. But that is not going to happen. And we are not going to accept these doctrines. What each side must do then is to pray for the conversion of the other side. This is not politically correct, I realize that and I mean no offense. But Catholics (Roman and Eastern) ought to be praying that we Orthodox will see the light and submit ourselves to Rome while we Orthodox ought to be praying that y'all will see the light and return to Orthodoxy. And we should continue to have theological discussions because in these discussions we not only clarify exactly what we believe and where there are real disagreements, we also hold out the hope of possibly persuading the other side. And I think that all of this (no matter who is right or wrong) is an expression of Christian love if it is done in humility and for the good of our neighbor's salvation.

Joe

Restoration of communion between Rome and Orthodoxy would entail one or the other ceasing to be. This is because both claim to be The Church and both confess in their respective creeds that there is only One Church. Both the RCC and the Orthodox hold that restoration of communion must be a reflection of a unity in faith.

This does not mean we need to be in complete agreement on where every comma or apostrophe needs to be. Even in the first millennium there were points of disagreement. But it does mean that on points of concrete dogma there must be agreement. Herein lies the principle problem from the Orthodox perspective. The Roman Church has post-schism unilaterally adopted certain articles of faith which it holds to be infallible doctrine. Restoration of communion would not be possible absent assent to those dogmas. Many of these additions to the Deposit of the Faith are categorically rejected by Orthodoxy.

For communion to be restored the Orthodox would have to become Catholics or Rome would have to somehow reduce what it has defined as irreformable dogma to the level of theologuema. I think the odds here are not good. From the Orthodox perspective we have added nothing to the Faith held in common by both East & West during the age of the undivided Church. While most Orthodox decry the schism as a terrible scandal we also feel that having added nothing to the faith once held by all, we are not under any special obligation to accept unilateral alterations to it.

I have enormous respect for the Roman Catholic Church. But restoration of communion would I believe, require a great miracle. When the question arises about a lack of enthusiasm for ecumenism on the part of the Orthodox (which is a fair observation); my general response is to ask what the object of ecumenism is?

If your object is for everyone to get together and express polite sentiments about religious tolerance, I am all for that. But that can be accomplished with the speed of a fax machine. If the objective is to get religious leaders with little in common together and to issue theologically vacuous (or worse) kumbaiyah statements which serve no useful purpose other than to confuse the faithful or promote some sort of universalism, then you can count me out. Hence my general opposition to membership in the WCC and the NCC. (This is an excellent example of a case where we Orthodox should follow Rome's lead.)

But if you want to talk about healing schism and restoring full unity in the Faith then I am fine with that as are most Orthodox. But from our perspective that Faith already exists in its fullness in Holy Orthodoxy. We feel no need for theological innovation. Those who are interested in becoming Orthodox are more than welcome. We don't push our faith. (Indeed if I may engage in a little criticism of the Orthodox Church I would opine that we are too lax in evangelism.)

If there is a perception that there is a lack of Orthodox enthusiasm it probably can be traced to this point. When non-Orthodox want to talk about restoring communion they usually mean they want to talk (at least in part) about what concessions the Orthodox are willing to make to that end. And of course when our answer is none, and the other side has similar positions on its post-schism doctrinal innovations, things tend to get bogged down rather quickly.

I do not fault Romans for refusing to compromise on matters of core doctrine. Let's be honest here. If they were ready to compromise on Vatican I or the Filioque or any of the other serious dogmatic points that divide us, they would not really be Roman Catholics. But I do wonder why they get upset with us when we similarly refuse to compromise on core matters of faith?

Isn't it better and more honest to concede that we belong to different churches with significant doctrinal differences? I do not believe Roman Catholics are horrible people any more than most Catholics believe we are. (Of course there are a handful of vocal hard liners on both sides of the fence.) There are vast areas of common agreement between our respective churches which provide enormous opportunities for cooperation that would not require a false communion. I believe that this is where our energies should be devoted.

Who knows what several centuries of feeding the poor and standing together against the common threats to Christendom might produce? If communion is ever to be restored I would suggest that this first step is far more likely to yield long term fruit than all of the various joint theological conferences that have been held since the false union of Florence.

Joe and John have said pretty much all I could say, and have said it much better. I think John's statements echo many of the ideas of Bishop Hilarion, which I too agree with. Our differences are not minor points, and if sacramental union is not based on unity of faith, it is based on nothing.

One statement stands out to me



Clearly the deposit of faith was not fully revealed on the day of Pentecost, but I will say I believe that as history has moved further along, the truth has become more clouded. In other words as time moves on I think our ability to recognize and enunciate truth has not improved, but has actually been degraded.

I desire unity and pray for it, but I believe at the same time the only unity is unity in the Orthodox faith.

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13903&size=A

I will say that if the hierarchs can find a solution acceptable to both sides, I will gladly accept it.

Perceived as such.

It's quite possible I have no idea what I'm talking about though. That happens a lot.

Well said...

That's refreshing to hear!

Joe seems to think that other Orthodox members would not be so obedient. If reconciliation were to occur, could we have a Council of Florence all over again?

I respect his position. One shouldn't just simply be obedient because the leadership says to do something. They are quite capable of getting things wrong.



Sure, if you had something like that council again, you would have the same result.

I don't think you will ever get doctrinal agreement or some sort of integration of the structures of the two sides. Nor do I think that would be a good thing. The only real possibility in my opinion is mutual recognition of the sacraments and living with the paradox of different definitions of belief while doing this. There was a discussion of this article a while ago

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/03/radical-orthodo.html

and maybe it is actions like that that represent the only real hope of achieving this goal.

We are in 100% agreement!