2054 project

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,282
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
We've got a bunch of fairly uneducated idi... uhhh I mean, people who shouldn't be speaking on behalf of the church. My priest told me that a few years ago, during our Greek festival, that one parishioner started chasing people out of the church who were there for church tour because "they were desecrating the church by being in it!!!"

The only voices that really count are the bishops.

Ah... found this from Archmandrite Ambrosius from the OCA church published in 1997: HTC: Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church - Chapter 4

Everyone but the Greeks follows the 3-tier system. The Greeks chrismate all Christian converts.
That's complicated,

Catholics do accept the baptisms of the Orthodox. Period. End of story. We never stopped doing so as far as I know. Let me know when all the Orthodox end up on the same page.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Well, a lot of the complications come from history of Orthodox regions. The Greeks were under Ottoman rule for 500 years. The Eastern European countries were under Communist rule for most of the 20th century. So each area approached things differently.

We simply receive Christians under different ways, chrismation or a declaration depending on where someone is coming from.

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the καθολικός Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

— Letter to the Smyrnaeans - St. Ignatius
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,282
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Well, a lot of the complications come from history of Orthodox regions.
I'll say.

My point is that those complications have to be resolved within Orthodoxy if ever there is going to be a chance of Orthodox and Catholics resolving their differences. And I don't see the Orthodox resolving their own differences any century soon. Which is why I am such a 2054 pessimist.

We accept your baptisms and we accept you as brothers and sisters in Christ. Some of you may reciprocate but a lot of you look at us as you look at the heathens. Not the greatest ecumenical foundation.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,428
26,869
Pacific Northwest
✟731,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It would require Catholicism to abandon the papacy, or Orthodoxy to embrace the papacy. I suspect hell would freeze over before either of those things happened.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,121
13,377
72
✟367,588.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It would require Catholicism to abandon the papacy, or Orthodoxy to embrace the papacy. I suspect hell would freeze over before either of those things happened.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, this is a classic case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,829
3,407
✟244,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
...but reunion ain't going nowhere until you guys can tell us with one voice what's what.

I think the ecclesiological differences are complicated. You are laying out the simple case where two parties come together and see if they can agree on essentials and therefore merge. But the Orthodox are not one body. Papalism requires one body; Conciliarism does not.

It seems that nowadays we simply have different ways of authorizing doctrine. The Catholic way revolves around the Pope. The Orthodox way revolves around Councils. In all likelihood the Orthodox would not even consider themselves competent to "approve" Catholic dogmas in the way that the Pope could "approve" Orthodox dogmas, and if some group of Orthodox did approve Catholic dogma apart from an ecumenical council, there is nothing that would prevent later Orthodox from repudiating that decision.

In my opinion something like a "2054 project" would require the parties to revert to pre-1054 theology and ecclesiology, either explicitly or implicitly. The developments that have occurred since the split--and even before it to a smaller degree--are not mutually recognized as legitimate. A compromise would entail some form of turning back the clock, simplifying doctrines and downsizing "certitude," and forming a single Christian body that could move forward in a unified way.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,121
13,377
72
✟367,588.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I think the ecclesiological differences are complicated. You are laying out the simple case where two parties come together and see if they can agree on essentials and therefore merge. But the Orthodox are not one body. Papalism requires one body; Conciliarism does not.

It seems that nowadays we simply have different ways of authorizing doctrine. The Catholic way revolves around the Pope. The Orthodox way revolves around Councils. In all likelihood the Orthodox would not even consider themselves competent to "approve" Catholic dogmas in the way that the Pope could "approve" Orthodox dogmas, and if some group of Orthodox did approve Catholic dogma apart from an ecumenical council, there is nothing that would prevent later Orthodox from repudiating that decision.

In my opinion something like a "2054 project" would require the parties to revert to pre-1054 theology and ecclesiology, either explicitly or implicitly. The developments that have occurred since the split--and even before it to a smaller degree--are not mutually recognized as legitimate. A compromise would entail some form of turning back the clock, simplifying doctrines and downsizing "certitude," and forming a single Christian body that could move forward in a unified way.

Actually, we know that this has been the case with twenty-three small Orthodox groups having become Uniate Catholic churches. It is exceedingly unlikely that more will be forthcoming, especially among the larger Orthodox patriarchates.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Actually, we know that this has been the case with twenty-three small Orthodox groups having become Uniate Catholic churches. It is exceedingly unlikely that more will be forthcoming, especially among the larger Orthodox patriarchates.

Just curious which groups are these or are these in the US or elsewhere? Back in the 1980s, a group of evangelical churches led by Fr. Peter Gilquist formed the Evangelical Orthodox Church and then about 2000 people were received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I don't think there has been a mass conversion since then on our side.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,121
13,377
72
✟367,588.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Just curious which groups are these or are these in the US or elsewhere? Back in the 1980s, a group of evangelical churches led by Fr. Peter Gilquist formed the Evangelical Orthodox Church and then about 2000 people were received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I don't think there has been a mass conversion since then on our side.

Here is a helpful Wikipedia article - Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,829
3,407
✟244,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The only voices that really count are the bishops.

I wonder how much they count for? Presumably the Orthodox distinguish between the weight of a bishop's teaching and the weight of a Council's teaching? How then is a bishop's teaching situated between mere theological opinion and conciliar dogma?

I am also wondering whether most Orthodox admit of more than seven authoritative or ecumenical councils? A few days ago I was reading Metropolitan Hierotheos who claimed that two or three of the councils of Constantinople following the hesychast controversy are considered ecumenical (and authoritative) for Orthodox. Is that so?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,282
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I think the ecclesiological differences are complicated. You are laying out the simple case where two parties come together and see if they can agree on essentials and therefore merge. But the Orthodox are not one body. Papalism requires one body; Conciliarism does not.

It seems that nowadays we simply have different ways of authorizing doctrine. The Catholic way revolves around the Pope. The Orthodox way revolves around Councils. In all likelihood the Orthodox would not even consider themselves competent to "approve" Catholic dogmas in the way that the Pope could "approve" Orthodox dogmas, and if some group of Orthodox did approve Catholic dogma apart from an ecumenical council, there is nothing that would prevent later Orthodox from repudiating that decision.

In my opinion something like a "2054 project" would require the parties to revert to pre-1054 theology and ecclesiology, either explicitly or implicitly. The developments that have occurred since the split--and even before it to a smaller degree--are not mutually recognized as legitimate. A compromise would entail some form of turning back the clock, simplifying doctrines and downsizing "certitude," and forming a single Christian body that could move forward in a unified way.
So you are agreeing that it ain’t gonna happen. Pretty much everyone agrees it ain’t gonna happen.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I wonder how much they count for? Presumably the Orthodox distinguish between the weight of a bishop's teaching and the weight of a Council's teaching? How then is a bishop's teaching situated between mere theological opinion and conciliar dogma?

I am also wondering whether most Orthodox admit of more than seven authoritative or ecumenical councils? A few days ago I was reading Metropolitan Hierotheos who claimed that two or three of the councils of Constantinople following the hesychast controversy are considered ecumenical (and authoritative) for Orthodox. Is that so?

There are a few other councils that we accept as authoritative. I'm still waking up so I just grabbed these off of Wikipedia:
  • Other Ecumenical Councils:
  • Other important councils:
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,829
3,407
✟244,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Here are some quotes from Joseph Ratzinger's 1982 book, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 196-9:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East--it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity. The East may criticize the existence and function of the office of Peter in the West, but it must also be aware that, because of it, no other Church exists in Rome than that of the first millennium--of the time when a common Eucharist was celebrated and when but one Church existed.

[...]

Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as been (sic) accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As regards Protestantism…

[...]

How, then, are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-renunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West...
 
Upvote 0

bpd_stl

Active Member
Mar 2, 2021
43
47
St. Louis
✟10,305.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Here are some quotes from Joseph Ratzinger's 1982 book, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 196-9:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[cut-snip by @bpd_stl]In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.

[cut-snip by @bpd_stl]Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-renunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West...

I pretty much agree with these points.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums