www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Will It Take to Reunite the Churches?

Bob,


That's the USCCB so far; let's hope it's changing!


I like the idea of a "range of types", as long as they stay within the orthodox range. But they need to realize that there is more value to exercising their individual God-given gifts that to finding some mere "consensus". If there are two or more valid ways of understanding or doing something, then so be it! Why continue searching for a tertium quid?

What a "Bishops Conference" it would be to have the contemporaries Augustine, John Chrysostom, Basil of Ceasaria, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. (not to mention the non-bishop Saints of the time)! Consensus? Just what's necessary.

Thanks,
Michael

Bob,

I wasn't aware of this statement, but it certainly squares with such passages as Lk. 22,25-26: "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant."


I never meant to suggest this at all. I suppose I could have phrased it, "what are the real issues that need to be addressed ... ?"

I really think that:

• Reunion is possible
• It is the expressed desire of Our Lord
• It can be achieved only if the real issues are identified and addressed
• Our divisions seriously compromise the Church's witness, not to the rest of the world but also to her own members

Perhaps this is why I am so passionate about this subject.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Bravo Bob, you have described the situation well. How many members of the RCC could handle a much looser church structure than exists now? How many could handle the fact, using your San Francisco example, some bishops might tell the Bishop of Rome to stay out of local affairs? I cannot answer the question, but I think it would take such a major paradigm shift which is probably not currently possible, that many would have a hard time dealing with it. Would ardent supporters of papal primacy be able to live with a return to a looser structure of the church as it was before 1054? In my opinion, no.

You noted,"For the Orthodox, the Holy Spirit speaks through the unanimous voice of the episcopate or through the mouth of the lone dissenter--compare St. Mark of Ephesus after the Council of Florence. "

St. Mark is a saint precisely because he stood up for Orthodoxy as did St. Photius the Great. There are equivalent saints on the Latin side I am sure. How would a united Orthodox Church made up of the Greek east and the Latin west deal with such saints? They became saints because of their opposition (rightly or wrongly) to the other side. If you could come up with a solution for this, you might be solve all the other issues.


You also noted or seemed to imply(excuse me if am misinterpreting your comments) that the laity in the EOC have more of a say in eastern ecclesiastical affairs than Latin laity do in their own. You are right.. It was they who backed up St. Mark. In a word, no matter what documents the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Moscow might sign, reunion would be a non-starter if they did not put it to a vote among the laity and get a approval from that quarter. Knowing the mindset of the various Orthodox I know (educated and uneducated), I would suspect the EP and the MP would have a hard time selling reunification if they were not run out of town first. The issue is as much politics as the hand of the holy Spirit. Putting it another way, many Orthodox are happy with the status quo and would not want to be marginalized in a union between east and west.

Deacon Richard:

I happen to agree with you on all these posted points. In general, I think everyone can agree with them. I do think that the real issues are very deep and very much misunderstood when and if we think that they will be easily resolved. And, yes, we do compromise our witness when we remain divided.

What I am getting at is the fact that we are not only reconciling long-divided Apostolic Churches, but we are also reconciling vaguely similar but not in any way identical ways of looking at the essentials of the Faith and then putting them into practice. Then, we have to move to how we will work together in some sort of administrative format and here we are reconciling two systems that have heretofore been diametrically opposed.

For example, a question has been posed as to how the Pope could be removed from office against his will, as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem was in the past two years. We Latins think that that is unthinkable. But to the Orthodox that is a deep seated problem because the Patriarch--and to them, the Pope, is a bishop who holds a presiding function and who can be removed by his Synod, just as Peter could be rebuked in the Scripture.

The Circular Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs can be found online and makes an interesting read when one wants to really enter the Orthodox mindset. It is a clear statement of their ecclesiology and their Church's functioning in the real world. It was, for me, an eye-opener.

I think one of the things that would make our bishops really think is that the current system makes each bishoip accountable to the Holy Father alone but does not allow for any other bishop to call his neighbor to account. Beyond that, I've read a statement by Bishop Bruskewicz wherein he makes the case that the Bishop's Conference has no canonical authority to enforce anything on a bishop within his own diocese. So to have your neighbor challenge something you are doing would make for an interesting change in the way business is conducted within our own Church.

Just some thoughts. I'm not trying to be confrontational but just thinking outside the box in an attempt to paint a picture of what the merger of two vastly different systems of orthopraxy might look like. And I'm not God or able to see the future, just trying to imagine what the future might look like from my own long conversations with Orthodox Christians--mostly listening to them.

In Christ,

BOB

Our Lord Jesus Christ also rebuked Peter but He nonetheless anointed him (Peter) as the leader of the Apostles, the chief hierarch in the Church. The other Apostles did rebuke Peter but did they remove him as their leader?

This Petrine Ministry is non-negotiable and it stays forever as mandated by Our Lord. What is negotiable, and on the table, is how this ministry can be exercised with due care, as envisioned by the Orthodox, in a re-united Church.

On the Catholic side, the Petrine Ministry necessarily includes primacy of jurisdiction (currently used as including universal jurisdiction) and not merely a primacy of honor. It should not be toothless, especially in today's currency.

The concept of "primus inter pares" has been altogether abandoned in Orthodoxy, thus leading to the fractious and jurisdictional squables among the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, increasingly seen in public view.

Hopefully, the next sessions of the International Commission, the main agendum of which is set to tackle this specific subject, will be able to come up eventually with a compromise acceptable to both sides.

In sum, I share in Deacon Richard's "passion" for healing the millenial division between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, for bridging the deleterious chasm between East and West.

Amadeus:


As do I. My point is that we need to understand the nature of the chasm and try to visualize the kind of bridge that can be done, not the kind we might like it to be.


Not necessarily. In fact, Orthodox posters here have made the point many times in similar threads that what you are seeing is exactly what they understand "primus nter pares" to mean. "Primus" carries no jurisdictional authority. It is honorary only. It is the equals arguing over how they will apply their common Faith in concrete situations and their view of these situations takes into account the facts of their particular Church's history and experience.


I heartily agree. However, if you have read any of the posts by Orthodox posters here, the Orthodox do not understand the Papacy as it has developed in the West, partly due to the political vacuum created historically by the fall of Rome to the barbarians and the need for the Pope to enter civil life to keep order there. On another front, there is an Orthodox argument that the Petrine ministry was not based on Peter himself but by the faith that Peter professed at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So while we can agree that there is a Petrine ministry that has roots in the Apostles themselves, there is a wide chasm of interpretation that has grown up around this ministry--what it is as well as how it is exercised.

The fact that Peter was or was not removed from office by the other Apostles is not the question or even relevant. For Orthodox Christians no bishop has a lock on his office and that includes the bishop of Rome. They point to the excommunication of Pope Honorius in the first millenium and the controversy back and forth over what that means. They also point to the fact that they believe that Peter's office of binding and loosing is part of the charism of every bishop in the exercise of his office.

Again, I pray daily for the unity of all Christians but I do think it necessary for us Latins to understand that the structure that we know and are comfortable with is a non-starter for the Orthodox Church and for Orthodox Christians themselves. We need to be aware of seeing the world and the Faith through their eyes and not take a triumphalistic tone when we state that certain things are non-negotiable. The standard Orthodox answer to us then is that they have kept the Faith as they have been taught it by the Apostlic teachers and the Fathers, neither adding ot it or subtracting from it. They do not believe that we have have done so. And this latter is said in all charity and honesty. We need to be aware of that.

You might take a look at the locked thread "Here we go again" under Church News. While it got off topic, the thread shows many honest reactions by Orthodox Christians to a blasphemous set of actions against the Liturgy. Take a look at some fo the reactions. Factor out the homosexual angle and see the reaction it terms of how we defend the holy. That is an area that is itself aa chasm to bridge.

In Christ,

BOB

Didn't the "Great Schism" in the 14th century require a council in order to decide who should really be pope? Is this event significant for the question of whether the Pope can ever be removed?

Joe

Bob:

It is not by conjecture that the Petrine Ministry is non-negotiable. "Ut Unum Sint" is clear on this and from the subsequent invitation issued by Pope John Paul II to the Orthodox to come up with a proposal on "how" it can be exercised in a re-united Church.

As to the Bishop of Rome being equal in all respects to any and all bishops (Catholic and Orthodox), I think the Orthodox may be missing an essential point: only to the Bishop of Rome was/is the Petrine Ministry attached as his principal function in the universal Church. Once he assumes that "mantle of authority," the Bishop of Rome becomes the "primus" of his peer bishops. He leads.

As we accept and digest the Orthodox position on this matter, we (Latins) should have equally the opportunity to proffer, for understanding, the Catholic position.

Dialogue becomes easier when the position of each party is put on the table.

Amado

John,

You've touched on an important issue here, and I think I can answer for the RC side. The post-Vatican II RC Church contains, on the one hand, a number of people who love the Church and the RC traditions, and on the other hand, a number of people who wouldn't stay in the Church another minute except that they feel they have good reason to expect to accomplish massive "reforms." This latter group is not really united and has a number of agendas, but nearly all of them would like to rearrange the Church's priorities according to the lines of the latest liberal political and social causes (gay rights, abortion rights, etc.--in a word, social "religion" would replace Christianity completely.)

The real problem is that these liberal "reformers" would not feel they had any reason to expect to succeed, except that the bishops have either been ineffectual towards them, or--in some cases--openly hospitable. Most devout RCs have at least some inkling of this, and as a result they almost instinctively look to the Pope as their leader and spiritual father, rather than their bishop. (n.b. I know this is a sweeping accusation and I could get burned for it--I welcome any RCs who would like to rebut me on it, but suggest opening an new thread to do so.)

My point is that if the devout RCs felt they were getting some real leadership from their bishops, they would be a lot more comfortable with a looser Church organization. (FWIW, as far as I know, Rome has not gotten involved in the San Francisco affair.)

OK, John--now I understand where you're coming from!

In a somewhat analagous situation, the East Germans got a really raw deal when they were absorbed back into the larger, more wealthy Federal Republic of Germany--who would willingly accept second-class citizenship?

With regard to the OC, however, it is even more than that, since they are rightly proud of their traditions--not to mention the fact that they also consider themselves the one, true Church!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

AMADO:

I'm a Latin Catholic as you can see from my profile. I agree with what you have posted or I wouldn't be in the Latin Church.

My point here is to jog my fellows to see the world from the point of view of the Orthodox. It seems that whenever this topic comes up, we all fall back into default positions, the tone gets loud and uncharitable, and we moderators then must intervene and close the thread.

The Orthodox are well aware of our positions and they have answered them for hundreds of years. Few Latins know their position nor have they considered the implications of it. My point was to try to paint a picture of what might have to happen should we really get serious about entering communion together.

Father Taft, a Catholic priest who has done extensive work in the Byzantine traditon and who has been honored by the Ecumenical Patriarch for his work, has suggested that we can only hope for communion and little more. I think we ought to stop and take a look at what he has had to say as well as ponder the implications. That is the thrust of what I've been trying to formulate here.

In Christ,

BOB

Deacon Richard,


As a RC, and an American citizen, I think you pretty much nailed it, if we're talking about the USA. (I don't know exactly what's going on abroad.) The only word I might delete from the first underlined text is "almost".

There seem to be some fine bishops out there now, and more coming, but this is something that goes back a few decades.

The perception that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" has also taken among a lot of Catholics younger than me, perhaps out of admiration for John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict, perhaps by listening to people like Mother Angelica (when she was being feisty in the 1990's), Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, perhaps for many other reasons (including the realization that they have a Canon Law right to an authentic formation in the faith, and they haven't gotten it).

IMO, that's also why RCs are somewhat ignorant of the ECs: they have a tough-enough problem just finding out what a Roman Catholic is, let alone researching other families in the Church!

My two-cents worth.

Michael

Deacon Richard:

We had a gentleman who used to post here who stated the position of the Ukrainian Catholic Church very well. Some of his frustrations about the heavy hand of the dicasteries toward a sui juris Church within the Catholic Church's present communion of Churches were exactly the same things that Orthodox Christians routinely bring up but which we seem not to be able to have sink into our consciousness.

If the light has gone on, we are on the way. Thanks be to God.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

Thanks for the thoughts. I was not thinking that the Eastern Churches would be blended into Western structures. If anything they would need protection from being absorbed in the West and in the church as a whole in order for their voice to be maintained.

In my religious community of Holy Cross, brothers are a minority of the membership. At one time it was the reverse with the priests forming the minority. Throughout our history we have maintained a concept called "parity." We are the only such Congregation in the world to have this governing concept. Parity guarantees equal voice in governance to the minority "society." We were actually founded in the 19th Century with three "societies" in parity--priests, brothers and sister. Of course, Rome did not go for that, so the women were broken off.

In Holy Cross, each province decides how their provincial superior is elected. Some provinces elect a minority to form the chapter. Some have a chapter of the whole. Some have a straw ballot and reduce the number to four before the chapter. Some do not. In each case the election is confirmed by the general, but how they got there can be quite different.

Anyway, I suspect that there may have to be a variety of govering structures throughout a reunified church. Perhaps even in a general council, there might have to be ways of guaranteeing "parity." Perhaps parity could be embodied in the confirmation of the 5 ancient Patriarchs or the number of present pastriarchs.

I do think that governance will have to be more complex and nuanced than throwing bishops and eparchs in a room and taking a vote.

Regarding my comments on the USCCB, I think we need to look at the church culture in the west. A couple of factors that I can think of have created an expectation of doctrinal flexibility which is unjustified in my opinion. The ongoing development of doctrine in the West and the perception that Vat. II has created a "new church" unlike the "old church" as well as the pluralistic context of the divided West after the Reformation have all contributed to the idea that moral and doctrinal teachings are mutable. To keep the church from flying apart, the present structures are necessary.

I think the East presumes virtually no change in doctrine or morals so there may not be the same kind of inner tension.

As I have said before, The East seems to maintain unity by agreeing that doctrine cannot change. Protestants believe doctrine can be gleaned from scripture by the individual, and they fail to remain united. Catholicism holds that doctrine and liturgy can develop and maintains unity through a centalized juridical system.

These are three vastly different internal cultures with vastly different assumptions. At this point in history, the Latin Church cannot function without a centralized juridical authority. But, I would not presume that the Eastern Churches should have the same kinds of juridical structures or that they even need them.

In fact, a future unity might not look much different that East and West do now. I think we agree on that, no?

The only thing that would/should change is the formulation of primacy in the church. I would think there would have to be some kind of consultative body that would be a meeting place of the representatives of the two churches to work out any governance issues that apply to relations between the churches.

Other than that, I see know changes.

Father J:

I'd have to agree with you 100%. And I think that your idea that things might not look much different than they do now is exactly what Father Taft seemed to be saying when he said that all we might get is communion. A communion does not mean uniformity of governing structures. It means that we have unity in belief, but that the way in which that belief is lived out and the discipline structures that surround that belief can be different: unity in diversity; complimentarity of structures. This statement, I believe, was meant to derail the kind of thinking that still prevails in some quarters that sees Orthodox Christians in the same relationship as Eastern Catholics with the Latin Church assumed to be superior, etc. etc. And that kind of thinking is still around, alive and (not) well.


I do think that there is ongoing theological work in Orthodoxy that merits our study. It may be more conservative than we Latins are used to, but nevertheless there is a living link with the Patristic age that is a compliment to Western approaches to the great Mystery we all are part of.

In Christ,

BOB