Union with Rome. What Would it Take?

[ALoveDivine]

Let me preface by saying that, having studied church history, and being Catholic, I can readily accept the fact that the Orthodox Church is valid in terms of Apostolic succession. In fact I really hate that there is a separate between the See of Rome and the Eastern Bishops, and I'm sure it pains Christ as well.

I've learned about many of the historical situations that have created and exacerbated the divisions between us, yet I also see a great deal of Ecumenicalism taking place between the two churches. So I would like to ask my EO brothers and sisters one simple question. In your humble opinion, what would it take, specifically on the part of the Bishop of Rome, to restore the unity of the Apostolic church, to unite east and west together as one?

 

[truefiction1]

It would take the light of true reason, which is not available to populaces that have succumbed to the pressures of left hemispheric dominance, for these are perceiving all things with little more than half of a mind. Christ referred to this condition of left hemispheric dominance when He spoke of the "eye" (that is, the mind) that is bad. This defective mind (bad eye), deprived as it is of the virtue and grace which is facilitated through the other cerebral hemisphere, lends itself too readily to structures dedicated to power, control, and overrationalizing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it would take Rome repenting of her many heresies (and I say this not as an offense, but because it is true). papal infallibility, the filioque, created grace, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary before her death, Purgatory, indulgences, etc. only after those are openly rejected, can we actually start talking about union.

 

[ALoveDivine]

ArmyMatt, would you not concede that many of those "heresies" are in fact simply different ways of expressing similar things? I am aware that Rome has this tendency of trying to strictly define things, which I don't necessarily thing is proper in a lot of cases.

For example, if you read the CCC the current Catholic understanding of original sin is nearly identical to the EO understanding of ancestral sin. As far as I am aware the Catholic Church does not teach the view that we all inherit the actual guilt of Adam, but rather death and the inclination to sin. Also, the Catholic Church has never stated whether the Assumption of Mary happened before or after her death, just that the Assumption itself happened.

The Catholic Church also often speaks of purgatory (as well as heaven and hell) not necessarily as places but as states of being. If i'm not mistaken, the EO also believe in a "purification" of souls after death, they just don't call it "Purgatory". Beyond all of this, I know that much of the Eastern Rite Church follows the EO in its energies/essence distinction and even its rejection of the strict mortal/venial sin dichotomy, and yet these Eastern Rite churches are in full communion with Rome.

Not to debate here, but it seems to me that there is room within the Catholic Church for both the western and eastern theological traditions. Is Unity really too far off if all of this is in fact true?

 

[Cappadocious]

For starters: Renounce Dictatus Papae (that shouldn't be a problem at this point), renounce Pastor Aeternus; or, somehow re-interpret Pastor Aeternus in such a way as to be orthodox while addressing the problem of ratification by ecumenical council. Renounce the Council of Florence understanding of the Filioque,* or somehow re-interpret it in such a way as to be orthodox while addressing the problem of ratification by ecumenical council.

*That 'the Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration'.

 

[ArmyMatt]

ArmyMatt, would you not concede that many of those "heresies" are in fact simply different ways of expressing similar things? I am aware that Rome has this tendency of trying to strictly define things, which I don't necessarily thing is proper in a lot of cases.

nope. there is no way to say that Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, Purgatory, indulgences, etc are anything other than heretical from the Orthodox POV. I know Rome has changed definitions concerning the filioque, but that is only because modern Popes have been more cozy with the East than in the past.

For example, if you read the CCC the current Catholic understanding of original sin is nearly identical to the EO understanding of ancestral sin. As far as I am aware the Catholic Church does not teach the view that we all inherit the actual guilt of Adam, but rather death and the inclination to sin.

nearly identical is not close enough, and at the very least Rome used to teach that we inherit the guilt.

Also, the Catholic Church has never stated whether the Assumption of Mary happened before or after her death, just that the Assumption itself happened.

and for us her death is non negotiable.

The Catholic Church also often speaks of purgatory (as well as heaven and hell) not necessarily as places but as states of being.

the problem is there is no third state of being that one sees in Scripture or in early Church history.

If i'm not mistaken, the EO also believe in a "purification" of souls after death, they just don't call it "Purgatory".

yeah, but it is not a third place or state of being, and the fire is the presence of God, and that fire is given to the damned as well.

Beyond all of this, I know that much of the Eastern Rite Church follows the EO in its energies/essence distinction and even its rejection of the strict mortal/venial sin dichotomy, and yet these Eastern Rite churches are in full communion with Rome.

that doesn't matter. Roman councils in the past condemn our theology, and that of the Byzantine Catholics as well. as a Melkite friend of mine once admitted, his confession is a bit "schizophrenic" because they are in communion with those that both sides on paper in the past have condemned.

Not to debate here, but it seems to me that there is room within the Catholic Church for both the western and eastern theological traditions. Is Unity really too far off if all of this is in fact true?

yes, because Truth is uncompromising and not relative. therefore, if Rome is correct, Orthodox should commit to that theology in its whole. and Love and Truth are the same Person, so you cannot have one without the other.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would love union with Rome, but that union can only come on our terms with no compromises in doctrine or dogma, since Orthodoxy is the True Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I know the current "play nice" atmosphere is all about compromise, and anything less sounds selfish and arrogant, but we are not talking about two children who refuse to get along. We are talking about what we hold as Truth, and we cannot trust the Church at all if she is willing to compromise. From where we sit, we must look back on twenty centuries of history, and if we know that the Church is willing to compromise in order to "play nice" ... how can we really trust anything she tells us?

If we compromise now, and The Lord tarries, what do we hand down to Christians a few centuries from now? Nothing that they can trust.



There is a mindset, forgive me dear Catholic brothers and sisters, that is different between the two. It took me months of thinking on it pretty much all my waking hours to be able to shift the way of thinking I was brought up in and begin to grasp that, so I am completely at a loss to be able to define it in a short forum post. But it's NOT just a few points of theology. (Though those are certainly foundational.)

A big part of what has grown out of it, as far as I can see, is the whole way of looking at sin, forgiveness, and salvation. There seems to be a more measured, juridical, and punishment-focused view in the Catholic and Protestant teachings that shifts from the focus of the Orthodox Church that is more focused on healing the sickness of sin. Why is temporal punishment "necessary"? I hope you will say at least that it is "for our own good" but even then, why? No, something is different. And it seems to create a slightly different view of God Himself, which I would not be willing to give up what I have found.

And not only that, but the willingness to create new beliefs and change (even if you call it refining) old ones through the use of logic, reason, human philosophy, or whatever. That willingness seriously jeopardizes what we hold to be Truth. Do we not think the Church up till now has had the Truth?

I would love for the entirety of Christendom to be united, but not at the expense of compromising Truth.

 

[buzuxi02]

Personally I dont see why a union is even neccesary. Let the divorce be.

We are not the same, we do not have the same praxis nor ethos. We are seperate religions with our own customs and traditions and theology. Any union will simply weaken christianity further. Everyside has bigger fish to fry.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In an ideal world, a union would include the West going to leavened bread again, a rejection of indulgences and legalistic thinking like "holy days of obligation" and papal infallibility along with a return to the Fathers instead of the scholastics, and so much more. But the reality is the West always had a more legal approach to just about everything after the 5th Century or so. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches were able to co-exist for a few centuries before the schism with the West doing their priestly celibacy thing and using unleavened bread and all that, but I think from the time of Photius on, you see the East growing tired of the bad theology behind all that.

If the Catholics could make their Mass look like a Western Rite Orthodox Divine Liturgy and the Pope could be satisfied with a First Among Equals approach, union would be quick. But we know that wouldn't happen.

I will say one thing about the Catholic Church that is positive---they ARE moving in some ways to a more Eastern understanding of some things. After Vatican II and the desire to give the Eastern Catholics more autonomy and wiggle room and de-Latinization, I think there has been a Renaissance of re-discovery of the Fathers and ancient views of the Atonement, etc. I think Pope Francis in his economia as well as love for Eastern things is encouraging.

But having "hung out" with the Eastern Catholics for the better part of 5 months, I'll tell you there is SERIOUS Romanization going on with them! They talk like Romans, Roman baggage trickles into their liturgy, they preach like Romans, and it gives me pause. I will always appreciate their kindness to me. They were awesome in many ways, odd in others.

Orthodox see salvation differently than Catholics. And I know the West gets mad at Orthodox for charges of excessive legalism, but it's basically true. I listen to Catholic radio here and there still, because there's GOOD stuff on there about social issues and where we're going as a country and morality. But theologically they sound utterly foreign to Orthodoxy. All the talk is about whether encyclicals were infallible or de fide. The term "valid" and "invalid" are constantly used. Purgatory and punishment is such a huge part of the conversation.

I went to a couple Catholic Masses while I was on my "hiatus" and I must say, they were the most joyless and robotic exercises. Quite strange.

To some degree I concur with Buzuxi. If we reunited with them, I think the benefits would mostly flow from us to them, not the other way around. i think perhaps having a Roman primus inter pares would help organize the dialogues and herd the cats because Orthodoxy has been a mess in the West for the past century with overlapping jurisdictions and some dysfunction, but I think mostly we'd be doing the heavy lifting cleaning up their liturgy. It's b-a-d.

 

[Anhelyna]

Gurney - it's not all b-a-d - honest it's not. I've been to quite a few Orthodox Liturgies in my time and sometimes my eyebrows have shot off the top of my head

 

[ArmyMatt]

Gurney - it's not all b-a-d - honest it's not. I've been to quite a few Orthodox Liturgies in my time and sometimes my eyebrows have shot off the top of my head

that's why we need to get on the same page as far as belief is concerned (because liturgical abuse is all over the place), which probably won't happen.

 

[Virgil the Roman Two]

Union with Rome, in word: No.

 

[Virgil the Roman Two]

We will not have reunion ---- Not with the Vatican II Modernism, not with the Scholastic legalism, the mechinisation of prayer and doctrine; done with the incessant compulsion to over-define, pick-apart, and over-analyse everything. Also the whole Ignatian/rosary imagine-spirituality/holiness in your minds bit, no. Holiness is not an 'ecstasy' but a work of God in and through one's soul and body.

Also, Papal monarchism and centralisation will have to go. The Church is conciliar; a confederation of equal autocephalous churches. None Lord above one another. Nor is there any "Universal Bishop" as the Pope of Rome has himself to be; a title and position, which the late great Pope St Gregory the great denounced.

Any Patriarch of Rome is a 'first-among-equals'; a gentle elder brother not a monarch, lord, tyrant, ruler, president, king, emperor, dictator, or other such autocrat. Any potential reunion must involve a restoration or a resourcement/return to a church pre-Great Schism.

 

[Virgil the Roman Two]

Now, having said all that. I view all my Catholic friends with great love and greatly respect many traditional Catholic clergy who truly desire to pastor and shepherd the souls of their flocks. The faith in the remnant of Catholic faithful is something to be respected. I'm grateful for the spiritual haven; it provided the 'foundation' or stepping stone that our Lord used to gradually soften and turn my heart --- to 'metanoia' my poor soul; an on-going process, to say in the least.

I wish you all peace, charity, and the mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! For Christ our God is great and He loves us all!





_______________________________________________
P.S. Icons only; the statues have got to go. there's a reason the church historically forbade statues as they are too close to idols; whereas two-dimensional icons are clearly 'windows into heaven' and not at all to be so worshiped.

P.S.S. Also, the only instrument proper to the liturgy is that which our Lord Himself sanctified and dignified whilst He was here on earth: the instrument of the human voice. None of this guitar, organ, piano, 'praise-band' rubbish!

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I think it's very unlikely.

 

[Virgil the Roman Two]

And an anecdote: Eastern liturgy and theology is far more Trinitarian-focused and centric, than the Roman. Also, God's mercy's, our nothingness and our total reliance upon God is emphasised to a far greater and organic whole and degree.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Orthodox see salvation differently than Catholics.

Having studied both perspectives it seems both EO and RCC have the same essential view toward salvation. The difference comes in terms of expression and the way of conceptualizing it. I see both churches as having the same essential apostolic faith, but conceptualizing it differently.

That being said, I will admit prefer the Orthodox perspective here. I also understand salvation as being a spiritual pilgrimage into the divine life and deliverance from sin and death by a synergy with the divine grace. I don't conceptualize legalistically like most western Catholics do. I'm basically a western Catholic with an eastern Catholic theology. I know most Byzantine Catholics hold theological views in most respects indistinguishable from Orthodoxy, so its not really fair to represent the ENTIRE catholic church as if it was just Latin rite.

It seems Orthodox theology is for the most part not unwelcome in the Catholic Church as a whole. Though, the issue of Papal Headship remains. In your view is that the real deal breaker here? If nothing of Orthodox theology had to change for reunion to take place, except the embrace of the Bishop of Rome as the head bishop of the church, would you as Orthodox welcome that reunion?

 

[buzuxi02]

Everyone should stop wasting their time on ecumenism and strengthen the disappearing faith within their own traditions.
Bring back fasting, triple immersion baptisms, teach the importance of signing yourself with the cross properly and not sloppily fast, teach the hymns etc.
Revive the faith and stop seeking blood transfusions through ecumenism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm not referring to the EC liturgy. I'm talking the Roman Novus Ordo....ay yay yay!

Gurney - it's not all b-a-d - honest it's not. I've been to quite a few Orthodox Liturgies in my time and sometimes my eyebrows have shot off the top of my head