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?

Here's a dumb question:

At least in theory, why don't all sides simply convene an ecumenical council with the express intent to establish reunion and settle the underlying issues that divide.

We have all of these groups between East and West getting together and talking to each other, but none of them are really binding. Maybe it's time that the Churches on both sides invite the Holy Spirit to come in and guide us in council?

Just a dumb idea, i know. they probably couldn't even decide on a place to meet.

They need an Emperor in order to convene one. I'd volunteer, but nobody has made me an offer.

Why do they need an Emperor? short answer, they don't.

I realize that Emperor Constantine convened Nicea, but that is not dogmatic. I get the feeling, though, that you are pointing to something else.

One of the major problems with this idea is that in the tradition of the East, a council is only ecumenical if it is accepted by the Church as a whole over time. For example, the rejection of Florence by the East occurred in spite of the agreements that were agreed upon by most of the Orthodox in attendance. If one looks at the seemingly bizarre problems holding up the long anticipated (80 years or so) Pan-Orthodox Conference one can further understand the problems. They can't even agree upon who sits where and what mundane items will be on the agenda.

Constantine convened Nicaea because he wanted closure on the Arian controversy--pronto! He had stuck his neck out for the Christians and ruffled a lot of feathers in the process, but now all the in-fighting among the Christians over this issue was making him look bad and possibly putting his crown in jeopardy.

The bishops, for their part, were reluctant to sit down together for the simple reason that *someone* was going to have to give in. Since they were forced to make a decision, however, they surely did make one--although a good number of them went back to embracing Arianism afterwards.

This is the real problem: we've got to be ready for reunion on *all* levels. The "unofficial" talks actually accomplish more than you might think, since there are people on all levels that take them seriously, which in turn encourages more getting together. Let's just pray this will happen before the really big persecutions begin!

Peace,
Deacon Richard

The Ecumeniccal Patriarch in Constantinople, or the Latin Titular Patriarch Constantinople in the Vatican (whose supreme pontiff told the Metropolitan in Vilnius/Navahrudak that he wasn't a real metropolitan, being consecrated by the former and not the latter)? The bishops, btw, in 1452 expressed their desire to remain in union with the Metropolitan of Kiev, translated to Moscow.


Since such a thing contradicts Pastor Aeternus, and does not comport with the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, that presupposes union on the Orthodox model, in which case there would be no UGCC. A Ukrainian Patriarchate is not categorically ruled out on that model, but at present, it would be under Moscow (just for the record I prefer a canonical autocephalous Patriarchate (not just a Metropolitanate) in Ukraine).

I think the Orthodox view would be that the Petrine ministry is indeed intrinsic to the church and is something shared by all bishops.

The episcopate is one, held in totality by each for the whole-St. Cyprian.

If one says that man (humanity) has sinned, that doesnt deny the unique place and role the sin of Adam has in it.
Episcopate is one, doesnt necessarily deny the unique role that of pope of Rome has within it.

Monarchiality of the episcopacy is a feature as much of west as of east.
While centralization that took place in first five centuries was accepted by east and west, the problems started when there arose two centres of power, Rome and C.pole.

East and West are not that far from each other.

The Four Patriarchates in the East and those in communion with them say that the episcopate being one necessarily denies a unique role to any bishop. The defunct Patriarchate of the West, in the relatio of Pastor Aeternus, and PA itself, said that the one episcopate and its unity derives from a unique episcopate of the bishop of Rome (e.g. the charism of the other Apostles besides St. Peter died with them, the charism of St. Peter was not handed on in other sees in which he consecrated his successors, etc.). How far is yes from no?

If the one episcopate functions as Pastor Aeternus say its does, the episcopate of the Orthodox diptychs is disfunctional. That episcopate, however, has functioned for the past millenium (and beyond) without upheavals like the Great Western Schism, and in a way that bears no resemblance to the image set up in the Codex Canones Ecclesiarum Orientalium, without any role of the bishop of Rome. Abp. Zoghby once stated, the Latin Congregation of the Oriental Churches, and not the latter's Patriarchs and Holy Synods, governs those in union with it. How has this changed? Has this changed?

The Orthodox have not accepted the Phanar centralizing the Church around canon 28 of Chalcecon. What is there to indicate that we can or should centralize it around Pastor Aeternus? And since we have not, what of the anthematizations in PA against those who do not accept its definitions?

The Monarchal Episcopacy is found in East and West, but that has nothing to do with any "petrine office" beyond that one episcopate. A patriarch is not a "bishop of bishops," so there is certainly no place for a "patriarch of patriarchs" in Orthodox ecclesiology. Before Constantinople's rise, there was the three Apostolic centers of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch in the "T in O" world of the Fathers-one center per continent, and Constantinople rose in the midst of the Pentarchy. And, as canon 8 of Ephesus witnesses, even the Pentarchy did not and does not centralize the Church. The episcopate has never been made alive through a unique role of one bishop. Such was never how the Church functioned in the first millenium.

If each bishop holds the episcopate in totality for the whole, that precludes one bishop alone holding it in totality for the whole.

While I said that when we say episcopacy is one does not necessarily exclude the unique place of one bishop within it, that of Rome, since there has never been one episcopus in church history to have claimed parallel to that of Rome the same unique place, you come and bring as sn answer a lot more new issues I did not address to.

Logically we say divinity is one without excluding the unique role of the person of father within it. The same we say about sin, that man as humanity has sinned without excluding the unique place of Adam's sin within it.

That is whole I said. I did not say that east accepted that.

Still, the picture is more complexe as you interpret it above.

It is important to understand the gradual becoming monarchial of episcopacy as a development of political, social and ecckesiastical need, because it tells us how the church can transform subjectively the way it understans itself and its way of organization.
Of course the boundaries of this development we do not know exactely. That is why we have schisma.
However, the seed of this development was there as much in west as in east.

I agree. The bishops in general are the successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.

We can easely play as much as we would like with words. But let us not forget that there has never ever been claimed an episcopate one in Mathew, John or Andrew, as there has been one in PETER. And there has never ever been a claim on it as has been that of Rome.

I am afraid that is simply contradicted by the facts:Antioch has always claimed St. Peter (although not with the exclusivity that the Vatican later has, if that is what you are refering too). Constantinople, Georgia, Russia, Romania and Greece claim their origins in St. Andrew; the Church of Asia (Minor) in St. John; Ethiopia in St. Matthew; India in St. Thomas (hence "Mar Thoma Christians"); Armenian and Upper Mesopotamia in St. Bartholomew; Egypt in St. Mark (hence the title of the Pope "of the preaching of St. Mark"); Jerusalem in St. James, etc. Neither Rome nor St. Peter are unique in this regard.

The East did accept that. It (and the West) also accepted that St. Peter was no differently the founder of the patriarchate of Antioch than he was of the patriarchate of Rome, including the fact that St. Paul co-founded the see. So even if the Father as source of the Trinity is invoked with St. Peter, that still leaves you with Antioch in addition to Rome, let alone the issue of the other Apostles (was St. Peter the source of their apostleship? No).


The monarchal episcopacy is seen within the first century in the writing's of St. Peter's sucessor at Rome St. Clement and St. Peter's successor at Antioch St. Ignatius. Antioch has maintained that understanding of SS. Clement and Ignatius.

What I said is that in various commentaries of church literature one will never find a claim that episcopacy has been founden as one chair or office in Mathew, John or any other apostle, except for Peter. It has been widely accepted that it is with the words Jesus addressed to Peter (mathew 16:18) that episcopacy was founded. The one episcopal chair of Peter theory on which all bishops sit, speaks for it itself.

Another point for us to understand, instead of reproducing the rich argumentative literature on the topic, is, as I wrote earlier, to see that the church as a subject on his own, dependent on political, social and other needs, can transform the way sees itself organized. Gradual monarchiality and centralization of episcopacy that took place from the 1st century, part of which the development of Papacy is too, pointes us to that subjectivity of the church.

This again is very important to understand before we start putting clear cut off boundaries of this development.

And eucharistic episcopacy theory, according to which each local church manifesting the full catholicity, consequently claimin the same dignity among bishops, is practically an ideal dream the church of first ideal millenium never lived on.

That it does, but what does it say, as a) all the Apostles sat on it, and placed their successors on it and b) St. Peter himself sat on that chair at Antioch as he did at Rome, a fact commemorated on the Roman calendar itself. Then we have the words of St. Gregory the Great, that the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch sit on the one throne of St. Peter with him.

Btw, the episcopacy was founded in Pentecost. Hence the reason why St. Matthias was elected to take Judas' bishoprick in preparation. Which also brings up an issue of the relatio of Pastor Aeternus:if only St. Peter had a successor, how did Judas have a bishoprick for St. Matthias to take?

And we agree on that. What I think we disagree on is that those same political, social and other needs also lays at the basis of the primacy of Rome, not a unique office from St. Peter. Do you agree that this is where we disagree?

The chorbishop got the same opportunity to speak and the same vote that any Patriarch got at an Ecumenical Council, and the canons protected the bishop of the smallest diocese as they did the Patriarchs. The least of the bishops could ordain a priest or deacon, and even in the highly centralized West, continued to consecrate his own chrism. And the priests of a diocese always acted in place of the local bishop, and not the local patriarch (except in his own diocese), let alone a supreme pontiff.

As to dignity, no one would claim that Pope Stephen VII (or VI, the kinks in the chain of St. Peter from succession disputes, anti-popes, etc. confuses the numbering) is the equal of St. Gregory the Great or St. Leo the Great, would they?

Since you agree saying 'that it does' and 'we agree on that', that is enough as far as I am concerned regarding what I expressed in this topic, namely that papal monarchy is not that foreign to eastern mentality, since, to repeat it, that monarchality of church was a common feature of both east and west throughout the first millenium. The roman christian empire only deepened it, giving cause to the creation of two, rather three centres of power, Rome in west versus emperor plus his patriarch in east.

The factors, whether sociopolitical or a special unique calling from on high, do not bother us, since we are dealing with reality. In fact the factors were mixed, difficult too see which caused the other.

Pope Leo I, known as the Great, a saint for the orthodox up today, would be called in the contemporary language of east a papist par excellence!

There are answers as regarding the petrine chairs of Antioch and Alexandria. Despite that we are not going to bother to try and give a full exhasting sulution to what is what and who is who.

It is important, I think, that the orthodox, especially those who idealize orthodoxy as something pure opposed to anything of latin impurity, to understand that in fact the two are only two brothers of the same mother, roman empire, or, and, two sides of the same coin.

You mean by "papal monarchy" "universal jurisdiction"? How foreign that is to the "eastern mentality" may be seen by the reaction, i.e. rejection, of attempts of the Phanar (in circumstances similar to Old Rome after the rise of New Rome) to assert a universal jurisdiction into Orthodoxy today.


Yes, a bishop in his diocese, and a patriarch in his patriarchate. In canon 8 of Ephesus, the Archbishop of Cyprus, backed by the Church in Ecumenical Council, taught the Patrirach of Antioch the limits of "monarchality." The bishop of Rome St. Victor was taught the same lesson by the whole Church (including his suffragan, St. Irenaeus of Lyons) over two centuries before. The fate of the council of 869 in Constantinople confirmed the same.


And fortunately God sent the Bulgarians in between and raised up their patriarchate, then that of the Serbs, to counterbalance such a creation and adding buancy to the other Patriarchates and Churches outside the Empire to prevent the rise of a "papal monarchy" in the East after one had taken over in the West.

And the Patriarch of the West had his emperor too, a Frankish Germanic one, who ordered the filioque into the Creed at Rome, which caused the Pope of Rome to be struck from the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, a rupture only confirmed when Pope Leo IX sent Card. Humberto to demand reinstatement.


True enough, but such things left us with a communion of many patriarchates in the East, and not in the sense of the three papacies which at one time compeated for the patriarchate of the West
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tkkjn54Lcxw/TNSvpiaOA1I/AAAAAAAAAH8/6ctCEoKK2oU/s1600/KISH219.jpg
a prelude to the total collapse of the patriarchate in the Reformation and Counter-reformation.

It does not bother us, but it bothered Vatican I, as Pastor Aeternus explicitely demands acceptance of its claims as "a special unique calling from on high" and anathematizes atttributing them to "sociopolitical" factors. The Orthodox can live with the fact that the primacy (not supremacy) "was through the Church that it was transmitted to [the pope of Rome] in his capacity as her minister." Pastor Aeternus, Lumen Gentium, the Code of Canon Law and the Codex Canones Ecclesiarum Orientalium cannot.



No, because he never anathematized anyone who rejected his more extravegant claims, and in the end had to bow to the collective judgement of the Church.

Well, us Orthodox who have spent more outside the Roman Empire than in it, do not idealize the Empire of the Romans, in particular as we know what Romulus did to his brother Remus for supremacy. Third Rome might, but then her heartland was never part of it, and she had her own origins. And those of us only briefly part of Rome, and those never really in it, have the least problem with "Latin impurity"-Moscow and Antioch have sustained support for the Western Rite Orthodox. That does not lessen our insistence on Orthodox purity, which is why we oppose the imposition of a revived Roman empire model onto the Church.