Hi all.

1st time poster.

Probably a been there, done that" question, but where do we stand on Orthodoc/Catholic reunion? Are we handgrenade close, or inter-continental ballistic missle close?

Sometimes in the news I am bouyed with hope, and the next article I am crestfallen.

What's the real deal?

Thanks

We/they are, at the same time, as close as faraway!

This double dimension is the secret of that relationship, so that one deceives himself if he believes in a perfect union prior to 1054, or also that after 1054 there was real perfect disunion.
Rome and Constantinople, East and West, Greek and Latin will remain forever two hostile, opponent, adverse brothers of the same mother, Roman Empire!

Arbanon,

Very good point! The fact is that we have drifted apart slowly, over the centuries, beginning long before 1054.

The good news, though, is that there is a large number of clergy and laity on both sides who perceive the need for reunion. We really don't know how large it is, nor are we really sure if this movement is growing, but many of us are convinced that it does represent the movement of the Holy Spirit.

(For my part, I believe that the schism itself is the greatest evil, far outstripping all differences of doctrinal expression.)


You bring up a good point here as well, although I disagree with your conclusion. I would add that the division is the result of political influences, yet what unites us is something much greater, namely that "there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one God, who is Father."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I too belong to those who, to the best of my knowledge of these things, are for the unification of orthodox and catholic church.
Personally I tend to see the schisma as something practical (reasons of cultural, linguistic, political etc), rather than real theological.
Saying that, theology and its thought, i.e spiritual reasons, cannot be separated from and opposed to the practical reasons.
It is clear I think when we see spiritual reasons overemphasized, we find practical reasons of everyday church life contradicting them.
Also on the other hand we cannot denigrade the church to the point of being a simple human society.

One author of the practical reasons is Steve Runciman "The great church in schisma".

One of the spiritual theological reasons is Philip Sherrard "Greek East and Latin West"!


Greetings!

Steve Runciman "The Eastern Schism".

I've long been of the view that (and this will annoy some people here - I'm sorry, but I have to be honest) that the situation in the Ukraine is the primary obstacle to reunion. I'm not going to attribute the problems in the Ukraine to either the Catholic or the Orthodox, because both are at fault and neither think they have done anything wrong.

Basically, my take is that Constantinople would move forward if Russia did. Russia is happy to move forward once the situation in the Ukraine is "resolved" to it's satisfaction. Basically, this is what Met. Hilarion Alfeyev says everytime he asked about reunion.The absence of the Ukrainian patriarch when the Russian Patriarch met other Catholic leaders (see our town hall thread) just recently is significant.

It's deeply sad of course, but I really feel that this is the big issue. Russia doesn't want to lose what it sees as it's canonical territory in Kiev if it reunites with Rome, and that is almost the biggest obstacle. It doesn't even particularly care if it loses Galicia and western Ukraine to other heirarchs, and has made overtures that if the UGCC restricted itself to western Ukraine it wouldn't see this as a big an obstacle, but it wants Kiev under Moscow. It's so sad that politics are more important (in my reading) than theology in this process.

Well, you can't expect Patriarch Sviatoslav to go to Lebanon just to meet Patriarch Kirill... Pat. Sviatoslav is in the US I suppose...

LOL. Those of us in Alexandria and Antioch do not have a dog in that fight.

And then there is Third Rome.

It should be noted that should reunion take place, the UGCC would not be under Rome.. or Moscow. I'd say she'd prefer to be united among all Ukrainian Orthodox, with a Patriarch/Primate based in Kiev, in communion but independent with both Rome and Moscow.

The language of over or under is inappropriate. The key question is one of communion: will a unified Church of Kyiv at last be able to fulfill the desire of the bishops at Brest in 1596, to maintain communion both with the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople?

While I don't doubt Ukraine affects relations between both sides, I can only say for myself that my own faith is not informed by the ecclesiological, national or political situation in Ukraine. That would be rather scary.

I wonder, if pope Leo the Great, not to account for other popes between 4-11 century, can be not only part of communion but also a saint for the orthodox, a dual unity is achievable!

The issue is the Papacy. It's intrinsic to the church or it isn't. The rest is noise.

My position is that the Papacy--or perhaps the "Petrine Ministry"--is intrinsic to the Church, but not in the way currently understood in either East or West.

Our Lord's injunction to Peter, "strengthen your brothers" (Lk.22:32), serves both to indicate a unique role for Peter among the Apostles and to describe the nature of that role. Furthermore, it is significant that Peter is called a "brother" to the other Apostles, since one brother may be more important than another, but none is above his brothers (as, for example, a father would be).

My opinion is that the idea of autocracy, that is, that "all authority flows from the top," gradually seeped into the Papacy from the prevailing political climate, and that this ultimately made a schism between East and West inevitable.

The hope is for a more balanced approach to emerge in practice (since this is what matters, anyway), and the ECCs have a crucial role in this. If we continue to act as Rome's suffragans, then that's exactly how we can expect to be treated.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

So, here's the question; do the Bishops in either the Eastern or Western Church acknowledge this?