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

How Christians treated one another in the fourth century is not really relevant to the question posed in the title of this thread:



I would just like to stay on topic.

From what I've read of him I don't think I agree with his view of original sin or sexual relations, but that doesn't mean he can't get other stuff right.

Father Steele:

With all due resepct, the matters of Church history, be they from the fourth century or the twentieth century, are of great weight and importance to Orthodox Chistians. In fact, when one begins to listen to them without making prior judgments, one learns that for most of them the events of the fourth century and the ensuing centuries are of as great importance in the quest for the unity of Christians as the events of the last forty years are to Latin Catholics. We--and I include myself here--may find this mindset "off topic" but for Orthodox Christians it is part and parcel of how any future entry into full ecclesiastical communion will occur: that is, in addition to the theological problems the history will also have to be dealt with. Pope John Paul II understood this and his apologies to our Orthodox brethren were a start in healing the perceived wounds of the past two millenia and to finding the way to that full communion that we all pray for.

In regard to johnzonaras' comments about Christian unity, while we may not agree with them and while we may feel that they are not historically, theologically, or Scriptually based, they remain a part of the feeling and thinking of many Orthodox Christians whether we like it or not. Finding ways to bridge the gap between us is not helped by comments like this one you posted.


To most Orthodox Christians, the theological differences are immense and deep. And for this reason, we Latins need to spend some more time listening to our own Eastern Catholic brethren who are recovering their own traditions, especially the Melkites.

BOB
Moderator

Fr. J.,

I agree with Bob that this evidence from the 4th Century is relevant to the discussion. For one thing, it shows how the divisions got started. It seems that the law of charity was not considered (or at least, was a secondary consideration) when dealing with heretics. One need only look at Julian's (and Ammianius') reaction to see what impression this made on those looking at the Church from the outside.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

John,

While I appreciate your historical insights, the attitude you show here seems rather cynical. I don't see how you can discount Our Lord's own words.

What is clear from Ammianus' account is that we can't just look at a period like the 4th Century as an "ideal" time in Church history. They made mistakes then, just as we do now. One difference is that we can study history and learn from their mistakes.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Church unity is just another aspect of human unity, because by being united to God we are united to each other.

It is important.

Ahh Deacon Richard, you have asked the basic question! George Santayana asked it in its classic form. Some will say that we have learned from the past, others will say we have not. I have nothing else to say!!

On another thread, I believe it was Father Archimandrite Taft who stated that the best we can hope for and the best we will ever get is communion. And by that he continued it will not be anything like the tightly knit Church that many in the Latin Church are used to.

It might be well to think in terms of a communion where people are in and out of communion with one another more frequently than we'd like--or the Lord Himself would like. It might mean that the impasse that came between the EP and MP a few years ago over the Baltic states and their independence both from Russian political but also religious authority resulted in a break in communion that lasted for some months. And this might be something that is not infrequent in the future lives of the faithful. It might be well to think of something very fragile and something that must be worked on, as a married relationship must be--day in and day out. It might be well to think of a situation in a given country where the Latin and Eastern bishops came to a point where they were out of communion for a time and when an appeal to Rome was made, some of the bishops told the Pope to "butt out" as some of the African bishops were reported to have done in an earlier age. It might even be well to think of a time when appeals to Rome in a given country were something very rare and that the bishops in the territory would have to work out their differences and come to a unanimous consensus in local matters. It might be well to think that the present structures that we are all so used to might evolve into new ones where bishops would be held responsible by those in their neighboring dioceses or eparchies. It might even be well to think of situations where the laity demanded that clergy step down from office and it had to be done.

I really don't think that the coming together of the Churches will be easy at all. It will take, IMHO, a lot of prayer, a lot of humility, and a lot of willingness to give up simplistic thinking. And maybe even the idea that it will "take" something is a bit more than what will happen. The implication, ISTM, is that "take" in this context implies some sort of high level negotiation. And that's something that the Circular Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs in 1848 made clear isn't the way the Orthodox Church lives.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

You've got some great ideas here--thinking outside the box, to be sure. I especially like the above statement, since I think this is more like what Our Lord wanted for His Bride. It would definitely be difficult, but I think it could work because it would mean consciously relying on God's power, rather than human institutions.

I like your scenario of bishops having to work out their differences and come to a unanimous consensus in local matters. For one thing, it would give them ownership of whatever decision is reached--and a decision couldn't even be reached without a lot of prayer and a spirit of cooperation and seeking God's will.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If a goal is to be achieved, then whatever steps are involved in achieving it are "what it takes," no matter who it is that does them.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

DEACON RICHARD:

I guess I look at this phrase "what will it take?" from a business point of view. To me it says we've got to lock up the players in a room and negotiate what people are willing to give up in order for something to occur: something like the negotiations between labor and management.

My "take" on this--no pun intended--is that when we speak of how the Church will come together we should avoid such characterizations. This is not a high level negotiation between bishops, especially in relation to the Orthodox. The Circular Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs of 1948 to Pope Pius IX is very clear that in the Orthodox Church THE PEOPLE are the guardians of the Faith and that bishops do not have the right to impose anything "top down" as we Latins are very often treated to.

To make this concrete, let's take the example of the Liturgy celebrated in San Francisco that had the blasphemous spectacle of men in drag daring to receive Holy Communion. In the reunited Church, the Orthodox bishops of San Francisco would announce that they could not tolerate this kind of activity and that the Latin bishop needed to take immediate, strong action to correct it. Let's say he waffles and trots out some excuse. The immediate reaction by the Orthodox bishops is to declare that communion has been broken and that the faithful are not to receive communion from this bishop or any of his priests. The effect, then, is that the Latin bishop of San Francisco is now isolated from all the other bishops in the United States and is, in effect, excommunicated together with his clergy. He appeals to Rome and the bishops who called him out tell the Pope to "butt out" this is a local affair that we can handle ourselves. It then goes to the entire episcopate of the United States where there must be a unanimous decision to accept this bishop and his clergy back into communion. And there is one bishop who stands his ground and states that he will not accept this man back into communion.

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.

This is what I am trying to wrap my head around. It will not "take" something if by this word we mean we will be horse trading to some lowest common denominator that everyone can live with. The Orthodox have been rather clear in this area. They themselves need a unanimous consensus as to how communion will be re-established with the Latin Church and that may take some time in coming itself. To think, then, that some high level discussions on some short list of topics will "do it" is rather overly simplistic.

I'm also suggesting that in the future there will be multiple groupings of bishops like we have now and that they will meet in a common forum but will also have their own groupings that will enable them to preserve their own traditions and their own undertstanding of what constitutes the purity of the Faith. I'm suggesting that we will never achieve some seamless group that operates on the democratic principle of majority rules as we have in the USCCB. And I'm suggesting that entering into communion will require much more work on the part of all than anyone imagines when they pose this type of question.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,


I read the rest of your post and I'd say it's possible -- at some point in the future, so I'm not arguing with you at all.

But, "seamless group" like the USCCB? LOL!

You were kidding, right?

Michael

MICHAEL:

By "seamless group" I didn't mean to imply that the group was homogenous but that it was the only game in town. Certainly there are factions within that group.

What I was striving for was a picture that is not as neat as having one group that is the only forum within which bishops or groups of bishops would or could function. Or that it would be the only forum to which to take problems like the one I posed.

The future might look even smaller. I'd posed a situation some time ago on another thread where the bishops of all groups who called a given city their see city would function as a local synod where all local problems and pastoral decisions would be taken together by unanimous consensus. The idea being that there might not be room for unilateral action by one bishop that would harm or damage the work of others in the same region.

I guess where I am going with this is that the larger a group is, the greater chance that it can grind to a halt and the greater chance that decisions will have to be made to a lowest common denominator.

Given the range of episcopal types from strict Orthodox bishops to some of the very relaxed Latin bishops that many are familiar with, it may be a far more difficult task than people think. And trying to reduce the discussion to one of a few points of discipline or downplayng matters that others find to be of major importance to the practice and professing of the Faith does not help the movement toward that day of communion.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

You have interesting ideas. And it will take some or a lot of thinking "outside the box" to bring about union, perhaps. As an Anglican tracker, though, this polity, to use the Protestant term, sounds very Anglican in flavor or even Baptist. It seems to me this is more a recipe for disunity, than unity, in that owing to human nature various bishops will form volutary associations which reaffirm their vested interests and bringing about over time more division.

I am thinking of say the California and like-minded bishops tending to pull together and eventually going soft on sexual morality.

It is the "seemless" or forced nature of a body like the USCCB which is a safeguard against factions moving in separate directions. By being canonically bound to one anther we prevent drift.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Bob, Thanks for the fraternal correction.

Father Steele:

While the USCCB is a good working mechanism for us as Catholics and while it does prevent drift and local problems like the possibility you cite, my take is that the Orthodox will not stand for being absorbed into this body or any other that would find them marginalized or in which they would perceive themselves to be marginalized.

There is also the issue of how votes are taken on issues and the translation controversies are a case in point. In the Orthodox Church all decisions are taken unanimously. And that is something that might prove to be very unsettling to Latin bishops used to having a majority vote moving an issue forward.

I'm not advocating an Anglican model or a Baptist model of a future Church structure, just trying to jog the thinking of the Catholic members here so that they understand where their Orthodox brethren are coming from.

We tend to think that a Patriarch in a local Church is like the Pope--having some jurisdictional authority over his fellows. Such is far from the case, as the case of the Greek Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate's Synod removing the Patriarch and electing and installing another over the man's protest. While this may seem strange to us as Latins, it is the way the world of Orthodoxy sometimes runs. We need to look, study, and understand that. We need to learn to see the world through their eyes. That is the basis of my, perhaps, "off the wall" as well as "out of the box" speculations.

But going back to the idea of communion that has been discussed here in prior threads and remarked on by Father Taft, the idea that the future would bring a much more fragile relationship than we are used to is something we need to confront. Certainly the Orthodox will never stand for any relationship with the Oriental Congregation in Rome. That, for sure, is a non starter.

In Christ,

BOB