www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West more discussion of "reunion now"

Hi Everybody !

The previous thread, "I don't want reunion now," is being closed; but the topic of �reunion now of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches� is very much open and worth considering.

To review the previous discussion:

--RayK wants to start a new organization and a new website to promote reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches at the lay level.

--I objected. I held two points.

First, I mistakenly thought that Ray's proposal would attempt to bypass the hierarchy and establish reunion without (or despite) the hierarchs.

However, Ray and others quickly and patiently corrected me. The goal of the new lay group would not be to supplant the hierarchs. Instead, it would be to overcome ignorance with solid information, to overcome bitterness and distrust with opportunities for networking, and to overcome division (as Ray so beautifully shared) by allowing ourselves to be the hands of Mary as she tries to guide everyone back to her Son: Jesus.

My second objection was that I think it is too soon for reunion. As I posted:

I do not support the reunion of the Western and Eastern Churches now. There is too much ignorance of the East in the West for reunion now. There is too much bitterness towards the West in the East for reunion now. The theologies and practices have grown independent of each other too much for reunion now.

In other words, the Church has been divorced for a thousand years. The underlying problems long predate the separation of 1054. Indeed, in my opinion, many of the problems can be traced to a difference in personality between East and West, as reflected (and compounded) by differences in language and thought that goes all the way back to the founding fathers of Western and Eastern Christendom. For centuries, like in a marriage, there was a harmony between the two personalities. But then, over time, the two sides grew apart. Then, they split; and for a thousand years they have each been saying the other is wrong and they are right and so on. Real divorces between two human beings are messy enough, and they take years to sort out and to achieve a measure of civility. But a divorce of a thousand years ?

and

Hence, I increasingly wonder *IF* reunion is possible between the Catholics and the Orthodox (outside of an outright miracle). I increasingly wonder if Christian East and Christian West are so different that they cannot reunite without destroying themselves -- i.e., without destroying what makes them uniquely themselves-- in the process.

There were several responses, over several posts, which I will attempt to summarize:

--Zenovia cogently observed that we must be open to the Holy Spirit and His will in promoting reunion: whenever and however **He** wants it.

--Alex (OrthodoxCatholic) astutely observed that we cannot be members of the One Church without being members of our own Particular Churches. Namely, reunion does not mean losing our distinctiveness as particular Churches.

--Myles insightfully queried how far could a member of one Particular Church delve into the heritage of another Particular Church without thereby diluting or contaminating either (or both) heritages?

--To which the previously posted wisdom of Alice can be applied, namely: I think that a more realistic view of a 'unified' Church is that which was pretty much set forth in writings of Pope JPII, of blessed memory, which I vaguely remember....that we would both continue *as we are*, with the only difference being that of a 'spiritual' COMMUNION. This 'spiritual' communion would recognize the Bishop of Rome as being the elder Patriarch and first among equals, as was in the first Church, and as pastor of his huge flock. This 'spiritual' communion would have worked out the kinks of theology so as to proclaim us united enough to partake of the Eucharist in each other's church.

--And, to that proposition, Stephanos I and others gave their hearty approval.

--Stojgniev added that a reunited Church would be so much more than the two are separated and, hearkening back to a previous post, he added that this reunion will be most likely achieved first by the laity.

--Alas, as several people observed, final and official reunion will probably not take place in our lifetimes.

--Nevertheless, as several people observed, the work for reunion must continue.

--Lastly, Ghazar observed three very useful points.

First, reunion should be a goal.

Second, reunion should be a goal that we, the laity and all of us, should work towards. A new website to foster reunion is good, so long as it does not try to substitute itself for the will of God.

However, Ghazar's third point was very interesting and very worthy of consideration. Perhaps the separation of the Churches has also *served* the entire Church: by preserving distinctiveness within the Body of Christ, while simultaneously preventing any one particular Church from having total domination. Here is the point in full:

What if God has decided to harden the hearts of enough of our leaders in order keep the ancient apostolic Churches divided due to our own sinfulness (much like what happened to those at the Tower of Babel)? Perhaps, in God's wisdom, by allowing division there is a kind of balance of power which keeps our Church leaders in check and prevents them from abusing their power and leadership authority? Perhaps the division of our Churches has kept our respective theologians from getting "too progressive" in their respective theological schools (cf. 2 St. Jn. vrs. 9)? Can we not but admit that our historic division has actually acted as a stabilizing force much akin to the "separation of powers" in the U.S. Government? Remember, "God's ways are not our ways" (cf. Esaias 55:8-9). Based on this, I conclude that we should work for unity, without trying to force the hand of God or second guess the present situation we find ourselves in. Either way, we know what we are called to, the rest is in God's hands. In fact, we may be judged not only on how much we work for unity but also on how patient and trusting we are in His wisdom and control over the entire situation of Christian disunity.


It is with this point that I invite you all to resume the discussion on the topic of reunion now of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.


--John

I disagree with Ghazar's statement. I'd say that the Catholic Church has been, at times, very lopsided because of the absence of the greater number of Eastern Christians. Who we must ask can restrain Pope Victor if not St Ireneaus and his brethren in Ephesus??

Anyone who knows me from these boards knows that I am fully in favour of the Papacy. I see in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of several Fathers (Occidental and Oriental) ample evidence for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, acknowledging that the keys to the house of David reside with the Roman Church does not mean one has to be ultramontane or simply blind to the fact that the primacy has been often abused. Pope John Paul the Great acknowledged this fact in his encyclical 'Ut unum sint'.

The fact that we breathe basically on one lung in spite of the valiant efforts of the Eastern Catholics since Vatican II to try and reclaim their heritage has been seriously damaging. Rather than prevent Babel it gives rise to it and indeed Ghazar's exegesis is contra Scripture. At Pentecost Peter's speech was understood by everyone in their own language, the birth of the Church marked the reversal of the Babel experience and God nowhere expresses in Sacred Scripture that he wishes to overturn this.

There is no way that we can imagine that Jesus is pleased that we are disobeying His will that we might be one. In His omniscience He acknowledges that schism was inevitable i.e. Matthew 10:36-37, Luke 12:51-52 but Our Blessed Lord does not seem to be pleased with this fact at all. He prayed for his Apostles to be one as he was approaching the final hours of his earthly life but now those very Apostles' successors are at odds with each other to the detriment of all.

The Western Church has no counter weight and thus we must trust in the goodness of our Pontiff's. As Catholics we acknowledge that in matters of faith and morals they do not err (As the Church Doctor St Robert Bellarmine SJ reminds us a Pope cannot be a heretic because if he lapses into heresy he ceases to be a Catholic and all Popes must be baptised Catholic men). However, in terms of church governance and policy they can and do sometimes do the wrong thing. This is typified by Pope Victors actions towards the Asiatic churches.

In his retelling of the events in his 'Church history' Eusebius doesnt imply that Victor did not have the power to do this. But that he abused his power in an attempt to centralise practice. St Irenaeus being an Asiatic was naturally indignant that his native brethren had had their venerable traditions thus treated (which is also detectable in 'Against Heresies' book 3, chapter 3, paragraphs 2-3. Wherein he both defends the Roman Primacy and the traditions of the churches which derive apostolicity from St John the beloved). Because of St Irenaeus' courage Victor reversed his decision and peace was restored to the Church. But tell me is there anyone in the Church today who would be practically able to do as St Irenaeus did?

For all in tense purposes the Eastern Catholic churches are at the mercy of the Pope. God be praised, he has granted them good Popes as of late who see latinisation as a historical mistake. Yet for all intense purposes I think its fair to say that if a misguided indiviual with little empathy for the East did ascend to Peter's throne he could very easily abuse his authority over the Eastern Catholics. The Orthodox (often sarcastically, hehe) make a point of saying that accepting the Pope's power to interfere in the affairs of the local church is a threat to their traditions. However, in doing so they miss the point entirely that if they were actually in communion with Rome their combined might would be able to prevent such an action anyway.

Our Blessed Lord gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 16) and set him up as the master of his house, just as his ancestors set up prime ministers e.g. Isa 22:15-25 where Hezekiah gives the keys to his kingdom to Eliakim after taking them from Shebnah. However, he like his predecessors also factored in the need for conciliarity e.g. Mt 18. Peter's powers do not work best when Peter is isolated from the other Apostles. There are no real checks and balances upon the Popes besides personal sanctity (which has sometimes been negliable in Popes) and providence e.g. the Franco-Prussian War which prevented Vatican I from completing the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Can you imagine what it would've been like in such an ultramontane climate? There were people at Vatican I who wanted the Pope's every word to be declared as Infallible!!! It was only God's permission to allow the evil in man's heart to get the best of him and go to war that stopped Vatican I from producing a Dogmatic Constitution and allowed that task to fall to Vatican II in the form of 'Lumen Gentium'. As St Augustine taught, God permits evil only because in His power He can draw from it a greater good. In this case the preservation of the true shape of the Church. Nonetheless, from this example you can see what I mean by my sentiment that Papal primacy does not work best in isolation.

In isolation its very easy to become very inward looking to see only the Roman Church and the Roman Bishop; it happened to the Eastern Catholics. Much of the latinisation of the Eastern Catholic churches happened not by force but through their own free will. Why? Because isolated from the other Easterners (and indeed at sundry points in an antagonistic relationship with them) they looked to Rome. When Vatican II was called some people were actually surprised because they thought Vatican I had eliminated the need for Ecumenical Councils! The Church NEEDS to be united again to give people a wider view of what it means to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. In its present state it is all too easy for all Catholics both Latin and Greek to laspe into ultramontanism. Jesus established the Church in the way He did for a purpose to try and circumvent this is potentially fatal. In the West it simply culminates in centralisation, in the East in fractionalisation.

We need each other.

Schism is not God's will. I might not be very optimisitc about the chances of reunion, but I want it and I know that reunion is what Our Lady of Fatima is calling us to.

Just a slight correction to your post. The First Vatican Council issued two dogmatic constitutions, the first is called Dei Filius and the second is called Pastor Aeternus. The former concerns the nature of faith and reason, while the latter defines the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. So although the dogmatic constitution on the Church was not completed as a whole, the chapter on the authority of the Pope was completed and promulgated, and is a de fide credenda teaching of the Church.

Thanks. Thats a 'Church scholar' alright

Division is not the work or will of God! Period!
It is theresult of 1. Primarily our sinfulness and pride. 2. Secondly the work of evil.
If you want to know the will of God then we just need to read the NT. and the OT.
The whole point of the Creation story was that God is the author of Creation, he created the whole of created order to be in harmony and not chaos.
Part of redemption by Christ is to bring back all of creation to its sumission to God and the unity of all.
Now it is up to us to begin to submit ourselves to God and onther for the love of Christ.
Stephanos I

TERRIFIC!

John � your summation of progress so far is terrific! It actually helped me make senses of things � and outlined real progress and progression. You followed the whole darn thing in your head!

First off � I had no idea that people from Ohio could do that!?! Aren�t things flat in Ohio? with nothing to remember for miles??

Secondly � where have you been all our lives of discussion here at the board?

I actually feel as if we are not going in circles!

-ray

Can anyone point me to a listing of all churches - on the net?

Some time ago - somone had a link to a great list that was in tree form - and it listed all apostolic churches.

Anyone remember where it is?

-ray

Dear Apotheoun:

I intend to engage you in discussion regarding your comment about differences in theology should not be wall papered over. If is a good opportunity to examine if there is a level at which both theologies are indeed the same.

It goes to the question "Are we disagreeing with their theology for what they intended it to say? - or - Are we disagreeing with their theology for what we think we heard then say?"

As one who breathes with two lungs (an RC who loves the East and feels at home with the East) and would gladly grow another Coptic lung - my experience has been that theologies (the words of humans) are like cut facets of a diamond.

If we put a cut diamond in our fingers and turn it to our eyes � through each cut facet into which we look � it is the same interior light and fire that we see. Yet � we MUST look through the cut facet to see it � there is no other way. It would be wrong to think that the interior we are looking at changes depending upon which facet of the diamond we are looking trough.

I think a very short history regarding the growth of theology from its birth within Eastern cosmogony through its developments by the Greek fathers (forgetting entirely other churches such as the Copts) through its transplanting into the Latin world � is in order.

My proposal shall ultimately be � regarding mending apparent differences in theology�

If we put the head first in an assumption that we must intellectual agree first � and the heart (unity) will follow: we attempt to do what can not be done. No mechanism exists for such a path when it comes to theology.

But if we put the heart first (a unity of love) � the path is now present for the head to follow. And I mean that in a real way and not just poetically.

In order for me to prove that � we must first agree on a few definitions and conditions. For example � we must examine the limits of words (spoken or written) to first prove that theology (the knowledge of things of God) are not in the words � can not be contained in the words (spoken, heard, read) because words are appropriate to the senses as a function of senses � and therefore can not contain, experience, of impart � knowledge of God in any way. God may make use of human words but human words can not make use of God. While under either circumstance � man�s will remains free � and his understanding remains humanly limited according to factors. In other words � while the Church may speak infallibly � there is no guarantee that the listened will understand infallibly. In fact the empirical evidence is that the listener will understand in degrees of error according to his stage of spiritual growth as outlined by both Eastern and Western agreement on those stages of spiritual growth.

Are you interested??

I have seen a couple of your papers.

If we are successful in this � we might consider moving next to contemplation � where St. John of the Cross, Cloud of Unknowing, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Plotinus � intersect. Of course by that time I might have made you flunk out of school by taking too much of your time. :rolleyes:

These are not debates in which I differ from your views - I simply think you can sharpen my mind. A good knife needs a quality sharpening stone.

-ray

Oh.. I would add that "Love one another" is intricacy bound to conscience and nothing else.

Anyway - perhaps you had nothing else to do

-ray

HAVE - perhaps if you HAVE nothing else to do we can chat.

Good grief - my typos always get me into trouble.

Dear Harmon you quoted the following from Ghazar:

"What if God has decided to harden the hearts of enough of our leaders in order keep the ancient apostolic Churches divided due to our own sinfulness (much like what happened to those at the Tower of Babel)? Perhaps, in God's wisdom, by allowing division there is a kind of balance of power which keeps our Church leaders in check and prevents them from abusing their power and leadership authority? Perhaps the division of our Churches has kept our respective theologians from getting "too progressive" in their respective theological schools"

I say:

I tend to agree to a certain extent. I don't think though that the fear was that the churches would become too 'progressive' in their theology, but rather too lax in following that theology. The automatic reaction to that laxness was the Puritinism of the Protestant reformation.

As an example, we can take an account of the time right before the French revolution. When Rousseau went to France from Switzerland he converted to Catholicism. After seeing though the blatant immorality of the priests talking about their mistresses etc., he reconverted back to Protestantism.

Nice thing to know if one should ever wonder why one out of every two people guillotined was a priest.

There is a book about Father Arseny, (undoubtably a new Russian saint), and what he suffered in the Gulag. He himself said that the sufferings of the Russian people, monks and priest was due to the sins of the priests in Russia, for it is the priests that lead the people.

Another little tidbit I came across was about Ireland. Knowing in my youth the puritanism of my Irish friends, I was shocked to find that at the time of the famine it was not so. They seem to have been very 'superstitious', undoubtably a relapse into paganism.

It seems too many times we wonder why certain things happen, yet they did and God allowed it. Better we accept 'His Will' and try to see why.

As for the division between East and West, since it was the Church in Constantinople that suffered for so many centuries, they must have had quite a few 'sins'. Could it have been arrogance? Maybe laxness and delving into the occult, etc.

The West did fine until a certain time, when they themselves began to decline in Christian 'virtue'...and we could go on and on.

In Christ,

Zenovia

Dear Friends,

First of all, anyone who equates my mere suggestions as my "exegesis" is being a little foolish. I simply suggested these questions as possibilities. Now, if there is someone on this board who thinks they know the mind of God better than all else as to be able to infallibly state they know what I suggested is impossible, then -by all means- let us know who you are and speak for God. Many automatically assume that God wants Christian unity NOW above all else. I see this as a BIG assumption. Perhaps such a view is inescapably bound up with Catholicism? I don't know.

Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt God wants us to have hearts open to unity. But anyone who denies that God is able to bring a greater good even out of our division is simply ignoring the Biblical record. Now to reply to some specific points addressed in my direction by our brother Myles:

you said:
I disagree with Ghazar's statement. I'd say that the Catholic Church has been, at times, very lopsided because of the absence of the greater number of Eastern Christians. Who we must ask can restrain Pope Victor if not St Ireneaus and his brethren in Ephesus??

reply: Yes, but you are assuming that the Eastern Patriarchs can not have any influence unless they are in full Communion with the Patriarch of the West. I think this is wrong. Did not the last Pontiff refrain from declaring the new Marian dogmas partly because he knew the Orthodox would reject it (just as they did the declarations of Vatican I)?

As far as the Papacy being the keeper of the "keys to the house of David," I've asked before for someone to show Patristic evidence for such a view (i.e. referring to Esaias 22:20). I know Scott Hahn and Latin Catholic apologists like to use this but I'd be interested in seeing what Fathers taught it.

Now Myles, I didn't say that "division prevents Babel" as you suggested I stated. Please read my quote again. I said God can use division to humble us and stop our wayward ways just as He did at Babel. The point is simple, God can (and has) used division to correct man. Nothing revolutionary there. You are right that Pentecost was the reversal of Babel. But this does not mean that our sins and the sins of the Churches could not lead God to once again employ such measures as he has before. I never said "Jesus is pleased with our division" as you implied I did. I said God can use our division to discipline and correct us and perhaps prevent us from falling into greater errors. Many Catholics seem to assume that Christian disunity is the greatest evil and Christian unity the greatest good in God's eyes. All I'm saying is that this is an assumption and isn't necessarily so. I myself don't pretend to know God's plan so completely.

Again, reading on, you assume that the Orthodox Churches have no influence within the Latin Patriarchate. I think this is mistaken. What the heck were we Orthodox doing at Vatican II (even as "observers") if we have no influence on the West?

Many assume that everything has to be worked out theologically, and that full Communion has to be reestablished in order for the universal Church to function or again "breathe with both lungs" and this just isn't necessarily so. Full unity is the ideal, no doubt, but the Church can (and actually has begun to) have interrelations with one another ON ALL LEVELS. I would argue the Church is already beginning to breathe with both lungs. So, I just don't buy the above mentioned mentality. Full unity is something to hope and work for, but the Church can and will get along short of it. Of course, I'm speaking about the entire Church here.

Reading on, Myles suggests that without full unity, the Popes could (again) abuse their authority over the Eastern Catholics. Here is a practical manifestation of how division serves to stabilize the Church: such an action won't be tolerated by the Orthodox and the Popes know it. The Pope has to walk the line if he wants to maintain cordial relations with the historic Churches of the East. There's a healthy tension there. Not only this, the mere fact that there exists another Communion of historic Apostolic Churches like the Orthodox, keeps the Catholic hierarchs in line (and to some extant, vice versa). Bad decisions could potentially force clergy, laity and prospect faithful to seek this historic alternative group of Apostolic Churches. Look at the priest sexual abuse scandals. If there was only one all powerful Church, many would have nowhere to turn. But the fact is that if one group of historic Churches choose to drop the ball, get fat and lazy, the faithful can take their numbers and their funds and seek God elsewhere. This encourages accountability.

Again, Myles assumes "checks and balances" can only work in a united Church. In reality, the checks and balances already exist (as demonstrated in the above example) and are operative... perhaps not canonically but certainly practically. And here is where I see the wisdom of God at work. I hope my detractors pay attention when I state that I am not saying that God is pleased by disunity in the Church. Rather, I am saying that God might allow it for His greater purposes.

Finally, Myles should recall that Papal Primacy is not the real difficulty between East and West, but rather Papal Infallibility. I agree with you that there are many perceived benefits that could result from a united Church. I think it is a little naive though to assume all these will necessarily follow. For all we know, things might get worse!

Therefore, I don't pretend to know the mind and plan of God. I know He wills us to love another and work for unity. If He wants it to happen, and we are open to it, it will. If it doesn't happen I trust Him and His providence enough to believe that this too could be for a reason which He can take a greater good from. That's the point I was making. I agree with Myles that East and West need each other for the good reasons he gave. I only disagree with him in his assumption that we can only benefit from each other through full unity. There are too many concrete examples I know of which disproves such a notion. Hope this helps to explain why I stand by my original statement.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar

I got to this line and got bowled over with laughter.

You know my dear Zenovia - there are still people who believe that being a priest, even a bishop, is automatic personal holiness. You may shatter the fairy tale.

The time of the guillotine was not only a time to kill Papists - but a time to take revenge upon those clergy who had been lower than dogs but protected by the cloth.

God bless the priest who takes care for his own personal holiness. And God bless us by pointing out who they are.

-ray

I apologise for misrepresenting your stance and colouring it untowards with my own opinions and misconceptions. It was an error in judgement on my part and I was rash to 'answer' without having fully assimilated what I was supposed be responding to.

Sorry
Myles

Dear brother Myles,

Thanks for hearing me out and really listening to what I am saying. I think you have an excellent attitude towards Church unity we all would do well to adopt. Thank you for sharing your heartfelt convictions about unity with us all. They are inspiring.

your brother in Christ's Light,
Ghazar