Catholic Writer, Inquiring for Research

[Hamlet7768]

Peace and good. I have a peculiar request for help with a book I am working on.

Firstly, if anything I say sounds insensitive, forgive me, but point it out kindly, so I may apologize and correct myself. Also, to clarify some terms: When I refer to Orthodoxy, I mean the Eastern Orthodox tradition as held in the Churches of Constantinople, Russia, Greece, and so forth, not Oriental Orthodoxy necessarily. When I refer to Rome or Catholicism, I mean the Roman Catholic tradition, unless I explicitly refer to an Eastern Catholic tradition. Now, a bit about me and this book.

I, myself, am Roman Catholic. I have never personally been to any Eastern Catholic or Orthodox service. However, over the past several months, not entirely because of this story's research, I have felt myself drawn to the Orthodox tradition. I have seen videos of Liturgy online, and find myself awestruck. I also feel that I must examine fully the claims of the Orthodox Church, what I call a "fair theological shake," to see where the truth lies. I have found myself rather sympathetic to both Catholic and Orthodox positions on some of the more contentious topics between the Churches.

With me out of the way, let me explain my book in brief. It is a dystopian/apocalyptic thriller, set in a near-future United States that is divided into ideological factions. The Church has dwindled in numbers, but grown in fervor and started the long path to reunification. Not all of the Churches are returning to each other, but there are enough that there is starting to emerge a new "Great Church," to borrow a term from older Catholic historiography. Most of this is background, though, with the main story concerning a Roman Catholic (write what you know) deacon, who accidentally stumbles on a sinister plot while searching for his own answers.

Now, I hold no illusions that the aforementioned healing of the schism would be easy. I have been examining the different Catholic-Orthodox issues (since the story's reunion primarily concerns this divide), and trying to address them in ways that, with a bit of artistic license, would be palatable to both Catholic and Orthodox. Below, I will outline what I see as Major Issues and Minor Issues between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and how this fictional "Accidental Council" addresses them, through my own artistic license.

Papal Authority: I've heard some say this is the issue from which all others spring. In short, the Bishop of Rome cedes his title of Supreme Pontiff to bring about the return to communion. He now holds a primarily first-among-equals position, while retaining exclusive right to convene a pan-Church synod, as well as the right of first refusal in writing whatever comes of that synod. In terms of justification, the Pope declares that the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, as previously exercised, is "not expedient to the good of the Church," which I intend to be open to interpretation of whether he means "not expedient at this time" or "not expedient ever."

Filioque: This one is handled pretty simply. The Pope orders the clause removed from the Creed in the Roman Mass, pending examination of whether "Proceeds from the Father through the Son" would be an acceptable universal phrasing. This is probably not decided during the course of the story.

Peculiarly Catholic Dogmas: I refer here to Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, primarily. I'm not sure there actually is a differing dogma between Rome and Orthodoxy as far as dogma of transubstantiation goes, save for Aquinas's non-dogmatic formulation that has influenced much of Catholic thought. I would appreciate input on this. I believe the controversy surrounding the Immaculate Conception largely stems from differing perceptions of Original/Ancestral Sin, so I'm not sure how this would be affected. As for the Assumption, I believe that the wording of the proclamation of that dogma is vague enough to allow for the Dormition of the Theotokos. Either way, I'm not sure these will pop up much in the story, so I might leave it at "they're putting the ideas to a true council."

Purgatory: This deserves its own point. Is it an issue of wording or description, made worse by the abuses of men like Tetzel? I've noticed repeatedly that the Orthodox view of sin and salvation is not framed in legalistic terms, and the "final theosis" is similarly not punishment, but growth. I think there may be room for mutual accommodation here, as with the Eastern Catholic Churches, so I list it here as a minor issue, not a major one. Interested in thoughts on this, however, particularly in regard to indulgences. (Note, I'm not interested in debating whether Tetzel was wrong. He was; I think we can agree on that.)

Liturgy/Epiclesis: This is pretty simple as well, and admittedly influenced by my personal biases. The Roman Rite returns to normative ad orientem worship, in line with the Orthodox, while retaining its "Low" spoken (that is, not chanted) form as an option. However, I do have a question. I've heard that in "Western Rite Orthodox" Liturgy, which mostly follows the Tridentine Mass, the epiclesis from St John Chrysostom's Anaphora is interpolated into the Roman Canon. Would you consider this still necessary, or are the implicit epicleses of the normal Roman Canon sufficient? Or is this a matter for arguing, that I should not bother describing explicitly in the story?

I think that's enough of a wall of text for now. There are other complications, like the Russian Church and how the Church is organized, but a lot of that is during the story's second part, after a time skip. Right now I'm focussing on the period of time a year or two after the first declaration of a return to communion, which is the "end of the beginning," so to speak, of the process.

I know I mentioned above where I'm looking for input, but for ease of reading, I'll re-list them below. Consider each of these to start with "In a hypothetical reunion of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox..."

1. Would it be fair for the Bishop of Rome's primacy to extend beyond mere honor to the privilege of convoking synods and authoring teaching on behalf of the whole Church?

2. Would it be preferable to put post-schism doctrines to council or discard them altogether?

3. Is it possible for Catholics and Orthodox agree to disagree on the nature of Purgatory, as the Ukrainian Catholic Church does?

4. Would the implicit epicleses of the Roman Canon be considered valid? Does this even matter?

 

[mark kennedy]

Peace and good. I have a peculiar request for help with a book I am working on.

Firstly, if anything I say sounds insensitive, forgive me, but point it out kindly, so I may apologize and correct myself. Also, to clarify some terms: When I refer to Orthodoxy, I mean the Eastern Orthodox tradition as held in the Churches of Constantinople, Russia, Greece, and so forth, not Oriental Orthodoxy necessarily. When I refer to Rome or Catholicism, I mean the Roman Catholic tradition, unless I explicitly refer to an Eastern Catholic tradition. Now, a bit about me and this book.

I, myself, am Roman Catholic. I have never personally been to any Eastern Catholic or Orthodox service. However, over the past several months, not entirely because of this story's research, I have felt myself drawn to the Orthodox tradition. I have seen videos of Liturgy online, and find myself awestruck. I also feel that I must examine fully the claims of the Orthodox Church, what I call a "fair theological shake," to see where the truth lies. I have found myself rather sympathetic to both Catholic and Orthodox positions on some of the more contentious topics between the Churches.

With me out of the way, let me explain my book in brief. It is a dystopian/apocalyptic thriller, set in a near-future United States that is divided into ideological factions. The Church has dwindled in numbers, but grown in fervor and started the long path to reunification. Not all of the Churches are returning to each other, but there are enough that there is starting to emerge a new "Great Church," to borrow a term from older Catholic historiography. Most of this is background, though, with the main story concerning a Roman Catholic (write what you know) deacon, who accidentally stumbles on a sinister plot while searching for his own answers.

Now, I hold no illusions that the aforementioned healing of the schism would be easy. I have been examining the different Catholic-Orthodox issues (since the story's reunion primarily concerns this divide), and trying to address them in ways that, with a bit of artistic license, would be palatable to both Catholic and Orthodox. Below, I will outline what I see as Major Issues and Minor Issues between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and how this fictional "Accidental Council" addresses them, through my own artistic license.

Papal Authority: I've heard some say this is the issue from which all others spring. In short, the Bishop of Rome cedes his title of Supreme Pontiff to bring about the return to communion. He now holds a primarily first-among-equals position, while retaining exclusive right to convene a pan-Church synod, as well as the right of first refusal in writing whatever comes of that synod. In terms of justification, the Pope declares that the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, as previously exercised, is "not expedient to the good of the Church," which I intend to be open to interpretation of whether he means "not expedient at this time" or "not expedient ever."

Filioque: This one is handled pretty simply. The Pope orders the clause removed from the Creed in the Roman Mass, pending examination of whether "Proceeds from the Father through the Son" would be an acceptable universal phrasing. This is probably not decided during the course of the story.

Peculiarly Catholic Dogmas: I refer here to Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, primarily. I'm not sure there actually is a differing dogma between Rome and Orthodoxy as far as dogma of transubstantiation goes, save for Aquinas's non-dogmatic formulation that has influenced much of Catholic thought. I would appreciate input on this. I believe the controversy surrounding the Immaculate Conception largely stems from differing perceptions of Original/Ancestral Sin, so I'm not sure how this would be affected. As for the Assumption, I believe that the wording of the proclamation of that dogma is vague enough to allow for the Dormition of the Theotokos. Either way, I'm not sure these will pop up much in the story, so I might leave it at "they're putting the ideas to a true council."

Purgatory: This deserves its own point. Is it an issue of wording or description, made worse by the abuses of men like Tetzel? I've noticed repeatedly that the Orthodox view of sin and salvation is not framed in legalistic terms, and the "final theosis" is similarly not punishment, but growth. I think there may be room for mutual accommodation here, as with the Eastern Catholic Churches, so I list it here as a minor issue, not a major one. Interested in thoughts on this, however, particularly in regard to indulgences. (Note, I'm not interested in debating whether Tetzel was wrong. He was; I think we can agree on that.)

Liturgy/Epiclesis: This is pretty simple as well, and admittedly influenced by my personal biases. The Roman Rite returns to normative ad orientem worship, in line with the Orthodox, while retaining its "Low" spoken (that is, not chanted) form as an option. However, I do have a question. I've heard that in "Western Rite Orthodox" Liturgy, which mostly follows the Tridentine Mass, the epiclesis from St John Chrysostom's Anaphora is interpolated into the Roman Canon. Would you consider this still necessary, or are the implicit epicleses of the normal Roman Canon sufficient? Or is this a matter for arguing, that I should not bother describing explicitly in the story?

I think that's enough of a wall of text for now. There are other complications, like the Russian Church and how the Church is organized, but a lot of that is during the story's second part, after a time skip. Right now I'm focussing on the period of time a year or two after the first declaration of a return to communion, which is the "end of the beginning," so to speak, of the process.

I know I mentioned above where I'm looking for input, but for ease of reading, I'll re-list them below. Consider each of these to start with "In a hypothetical reunion of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox..."

1. Would it be fair for the Bishop of Rome's primacy to extend beyond mere honor to the privilege of convoking synods and authoring teaching on behalf of the whole Church?

2. Would it be preferable to put post-schism doctrines to council or discard them altogether?

3. Is it possible for Catholics and Orthodox agree to disagree on the nature of Purgatory, as the Ukrainian Catholic Church does?

4. Would the implicit epicleses of the Roman Canon be considered valid? Does this even matter?

I should mention I'm a Protestant before I start but that said, I think the seeds of reunification of the Orthodox and Catholic churches have already been sown. What I'm thinking of are the measures taken by Rome to address the excommunications in 1054.

I don't know the content of the book but I think it might be more interesting if you were to consider what would happen if God were obviously involved in some tangible way. I'm thinking here of signs, miracles and manifestations both sides could agree were only explainable by God doing what only God can do.

There were three main branches in the early first century, the eastern church centered primarily in Syria. The churches of Asia Minor and Galatia (modern Turkey) and the western church centered in Rome. They had some differences but they understood that they was one church universal (aka catholic). After several hundred years the Roman empire converted and the Emperor moved the capitol to eastern Turkey, which at the time was the commercial center of the Mediterranean world.

I think the scenario you have envisioned is certainly a reasonable one, the church universal (Catholic) is certainly a lovely thought, something we should hold near and dear to our breasts as believers. We have so much more in common then we allow ourselves to realize. The members of the Trinity submit themselves to one another and Jesus washed the feet of his Apostles the night of his betrayal telling us we should do likewise for one another.

If believers can accept and embrace just that much and realize that we are all driven by the same spiritual desire to bring the message of hope to a dying world, there is always hope of reconciliation. Is the authority of the Spirit more important the that of the Son? The very nature of the doctrine of the Trinity tells us that such questions are meaningless, the members of the Trinity are coequal and coeternal. They don't argue among themselves, who are we to argue concerning them?

I would celebrate such a reconciliation, I would be especially inspired to see it expanded to include us meager and sometimes irate Protestants, such as we are. It's a formidable challenge to consider that with millions of professing Christians being so divided could once again embrace the ideal of the church universal and set our wranglings concerning ecclesiastical authority aside and renew our commitment to the core convictions of Christian faith and living.

I wish you great success in your endeavors, but I don't think you have envisioned a dream here. What you are describing is the reality. According to the will of the Father, by the completed work of the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit there is but one church, one hope and one baptism. This is God's will concerning His church, if only we have eyes to see it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Shane R]

Is there a place for Anglicans in your story?

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. Would it be fair for the Bishop of Rome's primacy to extend beyond mere honor to the privilege of convoking synods and authoring teaching on behalf of the whole Church?

maybe for invoking a needed synod, but aside from that, no. the Pope has nothing that his brother bishops have.

2. Would it be preferable to put post-schism doctrines to council or discard them altogether?

depends on which ones. some can be worked with and the language kept just given an Orthodox understanding. some must be flat out rejected.

3. Is it possible for Catholics and Orthodox agree to disagree on the nature of Purgatory, as the Ukrainian Catholic Church does?

no. for us there is no Purgatory. we cannot "agree to disagree" with something that concerns salvation.

4. Would the implicit epicleses of the Roman Canon be considered valid? Does this even matter?

again, this depends on understanding and what is being taught. we don't necessarily pitch out everything, but since we have been apart for 1000 years, we should go through the Roman services with a fine toothed comb, and Rome should do the same.

Papal Authority: I've heard some say this is the issue from which all others spring. In short, the Bishop of Rome cedes his title of Supreme Pontiff to bring about the return to communion. He now holds a primarily first-among-equals position, while retaining exclusive right to convene a pan-Church synod, as well as the right of first refusal in writing whatever comes of that synod. In terms of justification, the Pope declares that the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, as previously exercised, is "not expedient to the good of the Church," which I intend to be open to interpretation of whether he means "not expedient at this time" or "not expedient ever."

he would also have to cede Vicar of Christ, and no right of first refusal for any council called. any bishop has the right of first refusal.

Filioque: This one is handled pretty simply. The Pope orders the clause removed from the Creed in the Roman Mass, pending examination of whether "Proceeds from the Father through the Son" would be an acceptable universal phrasing. This is probably not decided during the course of the story.

while yes to removal of the filioque, no to from the Father through the Son. that clause, like the filioque, would violate Ephesus and Chalcedon.

I refer here to Transubstantiation

depending on understanding, we don't have an issue with this.

the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, primarily.

the first must be rejected, the latter point is fine if you say Mary died first, and not an option as to whether or not she died.

Purgatory: This deserves its own point. Is it an issue of wording or description, made worse by the abuses of men like Tetzel? I've noticed repeatedly that the Orthodox view of sin and salvation is not framed in legalistic terms, and the "final theosis" is similarly not punishment, but growth. I think there may be room for mutual accommodation here, as with the Eastern Catholic Churches, so I list it here as a minor issue, not a major one. Interested in thoughts on this, however, particularly in regard to indulgences. (Note, I'm not interested in debating whether Tetzel was wrong. He was; I think we can agree on that.)

no to indulgences and no to Purgatory.

Liturgy/Epiclesis: This is pretty simple as well, and admittedly influenced by my personal biases. The Roman Rite returns to normative ad orientem worship, in line with the Orthodox, while retaining its "Low" spoken (that is, not chanted) form as an option. However, I do have a question. I've heard that in "Western Rite Orthodox" Liturgy, which mostly follows the Tridentine Mass, the epiclesis from St John Chrysostom's Anaphora is interpolated into the Roman Canon. Would you consider this still necessary, or are the implicit epicleses of the normal Roman Canon sufficient? Or is this a matter for arguing, that I should not bother describing explicitly in the story?

again, depending on the Liturgical theology and why you are doing what you are doing, this might not need to be modified at all, or if so, not much.

 

[Hamlet7768]

I don't know the content of the book but I think it might be more interesting if you were to consider what would happen if God were obviously involved in some tangible way. I'm thinking here of signs, miracles and manifestations both sides could agree were only explainable by God doing what only God can do.

. . . .

I would celebrate such a reconciliation, I would be especially inspired to see it expanded to include us meager and sometimes irate Protestants, such as we are. It's a formidable challenge to consider that with millions of professing Christians being so divided could once again embrace the ideal of the church universal and set our wranglings concerning ecclesiastical authority aside and renew our commitment to the core convictions of Christian faith and living.

I wish you great success in your endeavors, but I don't think you have envisioned a dream here. What you are describing is the reality. According to the will of the Father, by the completed work of the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit there is but one church, one hope and one baptism. This is God's will concerning His church, if only we have eyes to see it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark, thanks for your kind words. I cut to the two parts I'm going to respond to directly. In regards to the "visible hand of God," I originally had in mind that the Pope explicitly called a council, but now I've changed to the "accidental council" described before, which starts as a brief meeting and changes into much more, as a more subtle hint that the reader can interpret either way. There is an explicit theophany later in the story, but it's a vision experienced by one character only, and isn't relevant to the Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation.

Now, as far as the "branch theory" you mention, I was briefly partial to it, but I think there is a limit to what sort of difference you can have before one point of difference becomes error. That's all I'll really say on the topic. You may find Vladimir Solovyov's "A Short Tale of Anti-Christ" interesting, though. It's a similar vein to what you describe, and was a big influence on my desire to write an apocalyptic story.

Is there a place for Anglicans in your story?

I don't have an explicit place in there. I wanted to focus on the older Apostolic Tradition, partly due to my personal interests. However, it is a note of background that some of the more conservative "high-church" Anglican parishes convert, one by one, over the period of the Accidental Council, as they see the Holy Spirit at work. That, again, is background and may only be alluded to once or twice in the story proper.

I have to run to dinner now, but I promise to address ArmyMatt's very thorough response later tonight.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I look forward to it, and as a Sci Fi geek your writing perked my interest

 

[Hamlet7768]

And here it is! Thanks to ArmyMatt's second post, this is no longer a double post. There was no way I was going to be able to fit these two posts in one...so thanks! Now, onto the topics.

maybe for invoking a needed synod, but aside from that, no. the Pope has nothing that his brother bishops have.

I suppose that makes sense, since the "right to author the decision" doesn't make much sense in a conciliar format.

depends on which ones. some can be worked with and the language kept just given an Orthodox understanding. some must be flat out rejected.

Are there any that I've not mentioned here that you'd like to refer to, specifically?

no. for us there is no Purgatory. we cannot "agree to disagree" with something that concerns salvation.

Okay, this is something I think is worth debating, but that might be more appropriate for its own thread in the St Justin Martyr Hall...

again, this depends on understanding and what is being taught. we don't necessarily pitch out everything, but since we have been apart for 1000 years, we should go through the Roman services with a fine toothed comb, and Rome should do the same.

Totally fair. Looking at it the other way, plenty of Greek Catholic Churches already use the DL of St John Chrysostom, so that may not need as much of an examination, except for minor translation differences ("Now and ever and forever" vs "Now and ever and unto ages of ages"). If you want me to cite the specific parts on the Epicleses of the Roman Canon and the other Anaphoras in use in the Roman Rite, I can do that. I think the Roman Canon's one is the least explicit.

he would also have to cede Vicar of Christ, and no right of first refusal for any council called. any bishop has the right of first refusal.

Already ceded the first right of refusal, and I might pare the title down still further. Perhaps something like (to use my fictional pope): "His Holiness Leo XIV, Pope of Rome, Patriarch of Europe, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."

while yes to removal of the filioque, no to from the Father through the Son. that clause, like the filioque, would violate Ephesus and Chalcedon.

I don't have the theological credentials to dispute that, so I'll leave it be. It's probably best that it be left out and the issue not decided in-story, to avoid feeling overly polemical.

depending on understanding, we don't have an issue with this.

Well, perhaps it'd be best if we have understandings in the open. The formulation of Trent is that "by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."

Aquinas has a whole philosophical argument about accident vs substance/essence, but as mentioned above, it's not held as dogma, merely esteemed as a wise but not exclusive formulation. Ultimately, it is a mystery, which is why so much of the Tridentine Mass was said in a low voice.

the first must be rejected, the latter point is fine if you say Mary died first, and not an option as to whether or not she died.

The rejection of the Immaculate Conception, I must admit, is something I don't understand. Is it primarily because of what it says about Original/Ancestral Sin?

As for the Dormition/Assumption, I re-examined the text of "Munificentissimus Deus" (the Apostolic Constitution which infallibly defined the doctrine), and it does explicitly refer to her death, though in passing and not as part of the definition. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that Titian's Assumption, while a beautiful work of art, is not reflective of Catholic doctrine any more than Orthodox.

The last two points were repeats of earlier points about Purgatory and Liturgy. My only replies were to be "yeah, what I said before," so I'm leaving them out.

And once again, thank you ArmyMatt for the very thorough response. If you have any other questions aside from the points I'm bringing up, just let me know.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I suppose that makes sense, since the "right to author the decision" doesn't make much sense in a conciliar format.

every bishop has the right of refusal, because they are all equal in authority.

Are there any that I've not mentioned here that you'd like to refer to, specifically?

like how one of the words for the procession of the Spirit is a single spiration as from one principle. which is fine, if the single principle is the Father and NOT the Father and the Son.

Okay, this is something I think is worth debating, but that might be more appropriate for its own thread in the St Justin Martyr Hall...

sure.

Already ceded the first right of refusal, and I might pare the title down still further. Perhaps something like (to use my fictional pope): "His Holiness Leo XIV, Pope of Rome, Patriarch of Europe, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."

well, he used to have Patriarch of the West as a part of that. he would have to get rid of Supreme Pontiff as well.

I don't have the theological credentials to dispute that, so I'll leave it be. It's probably best that it be left out and the issue not decided in-story, to avoid feeling overly polemical.

fair enough.

Well, perhaps it'd be best if we have understandings in the open. The formulation of Trent is that "by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."

Aquinas has a whole philosophical argument about accident vs substance/essence, but as mentioned above, it's not held as dogma, merely esteemed as a wise but not exclusive formulation. Ultimately, it is a mystery, which is why so much of the Tridentine Mass was said in a low voice.

that definition of transubstantiation looks fine by my eyes, and that is one of the terms we use (we have a lot in our history). would just have to be clear that no Aquinas theology is there.

The rejection of the Immaculate Conception, I must admit, is something I don't understand. Is it primarily because of what it says about Original/Ancestral Sin?

no, it's because it was never taught in the early centuries, and at best is an unnecessary step in God's plan of salvation. I have heard that God did it to Mary because of His love for her, but you can't quantify God's love. God loves us as much as her, the difference is how much she loved Him.

but you do get into merits which is bad theology, and would also have to be rejected.

As for the Dormition/Assumption, I re-examined the text of "Munificentissimus Deus" (the Apostolic Constitution which infallibly defined the doctrine), and it does explicitly refer to her death, though in passing and not as part of the definition. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that Titian's Assumption, while a beautiful work of art, is not reflective of Catholic doctrine any more than Orthodox.

well, that's good, but I know a lot who believe she never died. that has to be stamped out as something heretical.

And once again, thank you ArmyMatt for the very thorough response. If you have any other questions aside from the points I'm bringing up, just let me know.

you are more than welcome. if you have anything else, fire away.

 

[buzuxi02]

I think you may have to add the conflict that would occur between the praxis of these various factions.

For example fasting. If they are growing in fervor than the strict 40 day fast would be important to Orthodox. How would that reconcile with those factions that don't practise it? The eucharist, what will this "Great Church" use, leavened or unleavened bread? There would be great scandal amongst tge laity if an Orthodox church decided to use unleavened wafers. Procession using statues? Orthodox would frown upon it, protestants would have an aneurysm. So I'm not sure how this emerging church would get around those things.

 

[Hamlet7768]

I think you may have to add the conflict that would occur between the praxis of these various factions.

For example fasting. If they are growing in fervor than the strict 40 day fast would be important to Orthodox. How would that reconcile with those factions that don't practise it?

The eucharist, what will this "Great Church" use, leavened or unleavened bread? There would be great scandal amongst tge laity if an Orthodox church decided to use unleavened wafers.

I've extrapolated from how the Roman Church currently treats the Eastern Catholic Churches in these regards. In short, each Church is encouraged to follow its old traditions, including which type of bread they use. That said, I would imagine that the Roman Church would stricten their fasting rules as a show of good faith, and to encourage greater piety among their faithful. I might have to speculate on how far they would go, but at least I have older rules and the current Orthodox rules as my guideline.

Procession using statues? Orthodox would frown upon it, protestants would have an aneurysm. So I'm not sure how this emerging church would get around those things.

Ahh, now this I'm not sure about. I'm not very worried about Protestant reaction, because Protestantism is not a big part of this Great Church. But I'm not sure how, exactly, the Orthodox would treat religious statues. I looked it up a bit, and it seems to be frowned upon, but understood as part of the Western Tradition, so this might be considered a merely cultural difference, rather than doctrinal or ecclesial. Processions would be fine, I think. I was just reading about a Russian Orthodox procession with icons, so it's a similar concept.

A late-story plot point is actually a Corpus Christi procession...

 

[buzuxi02]

I've extrapolated from how the Roman Church currently treats the Eastern Catholic Churches in these regards. In short, each Church is encouraged to follow its old traditions, including which type of bread they use. That said, I would imagine that the Roman Church would stricten their fasting rules as a show of good faith, and to encourage greater piety among their faithful. I might have to speculate on how far they would go, but at least I have older rules and the ..

Rome had the strictest fasting rules. Today it has been reduced to a custom of eating fish on ash Wednesday and on Good Friday. Rome was so strict on their fasting regulations that the canons of Trullo in 692 ad passed a canon forbidding the roman practise of strict xerophage fast for every Saturday except one, that of Holy Saturday. 400 years later the Pope defended this practise against Patriarch Michael Cerularias, he claimed the roman church will observe thus strict fast till the end of time, what happened?

 

[Hamlet7768]

They changed the fast. They have the right to do that.

 

[Thomas E Abel]

My take on the great schism was as most sins we commit was due to pride.

It is an interesting idea if Rome and Constantinople had reached an understanding at the time. Then again if we all a knowledge the is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A good place to start.

I should mention I'm a Protestant before I start but that said, I think the seeds of reunification of the Orthodox and Catholic churches have already been sown. What I'm thinking of are the measures taken by Rome to address the excommunications in 1054.

I don't know the content of the book but I think it might be more interesting if you were to consider what would happen if God were obviously involved in some tangible way. I'm thinking here of signs, miracles and manifestations both sides could agree were only explainable by God doing what only God can do.

There were three main branches in the early first century, the eastern church centered primarily in Syria. The churches of Asia Minor and Galatia (modern Turkey) and the western church centered in Rome. They had some differences but they understood that they was one church universal (aka catholic). After several hundred years the Roman empire converted and the Emperor moved the capitol to eastern Turkey, which at the time was the commercial center of the Mediterranean world.

I think the scenario you have envisioned is certainly a reasonable one, the church universal (Catholic) is certainly a lovely thought, something we should hold near and dear to our breasts as believers. We have so much more in common then we allow ourselves to realize. The members of the Trinity submit themselves to one another and Jesus washed the feet of his Apostles the night of his betrayal telling us we should do likewise for one another.

If believers can accept and embrace just that much and realize that we are all driven by the same spiritual desire to bring the message of hope to a dying world, there is always hope of reconciliation. Is the authority of the Spirit more important the that of the Son? The very nature of the doctrine of the Trinity tells us that such questions are meaningless, the members of the Trinity are coequal and coeternal. They don't argue among themselves, who are we to argue concerning them?

I would celebrate such a reconciliation, I would be especially inspired to see it expanded to include us meager and sometimes irate Protestants, such as we are. It's a formidable challenge to consider that with millions of professing Christians being so divided could once again embrace the ideal of the church universal and set our wranglings concerning ecclesiastical authority aside and renew our commitment to the core convictions of Christian faith and living.

I wish you great success in your endeavors, but I don't think you have envisioned a dream here. What you are describing is the reality. According to the will of the Father, by the completed work of the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit there is but one church, one hope and one baptism. This is God's will concerning His church, if only we have eyes to see it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ArmyMatt]

My take on the great schism was as most sins we commit was due to pride.

It is an interesting idea if Rome and Constantinople had reached an understanding at the time. Then again if we all a knowledge the is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A good place to start.

yes, pride is always a factor, and always needs to be repented of, but that does not change Rome's innovations that they never had the right to do.

 

[mark kennedy]

My take on the great schism was as most sins we commit was due to pride.

It is an interesting idea if Rome and Constantinople had reached an understanding at the time. Then again if we all a knowledge the is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A good place to start.

When Solomon was dedicating the Temple he prayed, 'the whole heavens cannot contain you, how much less this house made of human hands'. Well he got out, it should not surprise us to find he has made disciples in unexpected places. At the heart of this is core convictions that we all have in common. If we can agree on that, it's something to build on.

 

[ArmyMatt]

At the heart of this is core convictions that we all have in common. If we can agree on that, it's something to build on.

except that is what we have been doing and it has led nowhere.

 

[Hamlet7768]

I'd rather not get into a full-on debate about East-West reconciliation. I do think that finding common ground has gotten us somewhere, but it won't take us all the way. We do have to confront the differences that have arisen in the time since the schism, and the differences that led to the schism. And that's all I really care to say about that.

Another question for any Orthodox folk: Calendars. I'm not sure exactly how the Roman Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches handle the differences in calendars, and I confess I'm a bit confused as to how many different calendars there seem to be. Is there a short summary of this, or anyone want to help venture into how it might be reconciled?

(Is part of this to do with First Nicaea?)

Also, I mentioned previously that a Corpus Christi procession is a plot point in this story. What is the Orthodox position on such a thing? I know it's not done, but is it absolutely not tolerated, or simply something not done in the East, while still admissible in the West?

For a little context, a medieval-dated tradition in Roman Catholicism was to have a procession of the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance, this done immediately after Mass, and ending with Benediction and reposition in the Tabernacle. In the story, after being in half-hiding for a period of time, the protagonist's church decides to hold a short procession, which has not been done in a long time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

simple, Rome should follow the canons. if they did that, we would all be on the same calendar for Easter, which means that while cycle through Pentecost would be the same.

 

[buzuxi02]

I'd rather not get into a full-on debate about East-West reconciliation. I do think that finding common ground has gotten us somewhere, but it won't take us all the way. We do have to confront the differences that have arisen in the time since the schism, and the differences that led to the schism. And that's all I really care to say about that.

Another question for any Orthodox folk: Calendars. I'm not sure exactly how the Roman Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches handle the differences in calendars, and I confess I'm a bit confused as to how many different calendars there seem to be. Is there a short summary of this, or anyone want to help venture into how it might be reconciled?

(Is part of this to do with First Nicaea?)
.

Orthodox churches use either the Julian or the Revised Julian Calendar. The revised Julian is like the Gregorian for fixed feasts but retains the Julian paschal tables. Only a common celebration of Pascha was a concern to the Fathers. Copt's still use Egyptian names of months and have their own dating system beginning in the Diocletian reign. The Orthodox liturgical calendar has the new year beginning in September 1. Armenians have their own feast day which still retains the ancient eastern practise of combining Theophany and Christmas on January 6.

All western calendars are deficient for religious use because they are exclusively solar based and never take the phases of the moon into account. Originally the Romans calendar had 10 months (hence Dec means 10 but is actually the 12th month, etc). They added 2 months after studying other calendars to account for the 12 lunations. But they did nothing with it. No western astrologer has rectified the problem that there is no 0 between 1 bc and 1ad. And to have the New Year start on January 1 is nonsense as there is no historical or cultural reasoning behind this day, something unheard of.

 

[All4Christ]

They changed the fast. They have the right to do that.

I think the concern with this is that we don't believe anyone should change the fast, especially to that level of a change. Economia is accepted, and at times logistics require a modified fast, but removing a large portion of it seems to go against the spirit of what Orthodox Christianity promotes.

An interesting fact: the Western Orthodox Church which celebrates the Tridentine Mass has a very strict fasting rule, albeit different than Eastern Orhodox fasting rules.

In Orthodox churches in the Western tradition, the Lenten Fast consists of the following:

• Fasting on all weekdays (Mon-Sat) in Lent
• Fasting and abstinence on all Fridays in Lent
• Fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday
• Fasting and abstinence on Ember Wednesday, Ember Friday and Ember Saturday in Lent. (The Ember days are in the week after the First Sunday in Lent.)

Fasting consists of not eating until after noon; and then eating only one full meal with a collation (about 1/4 of a meal) permitted as a second meal. Abstinence refers to refraining from flesh meat (pork, beef, chicken, etc.) and their juices or broths. Shell fish and fin fish as well as dairy products are permitted.

The Holy Season of Lent in the Western Tradition | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

I believe this is along the same lines as the early fasting rule of the RCC (and Patriarch of Rome before the schism).