I don't want Orthodox union with Rome

[Jesus4Madrid]

at least, not the current Roman Church. Like most Orthodox, I have my differences with Roman Catholic theology, which I have expressed here and elsewhere: Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, the Immaculate Conception and absolute sinlessness of Mary, indulgences and purgatory, scholasticism, and others.

Yet I love a lot of conservative Roman Catholics, including my Opus Dei wife. And theoretically, I could not be happier if Roman Catholics became more Orthodox in theology and praxis, thereby enabling reunion of Rome with the Orthodox Church.

Yet based on some of the proposals made public at this week's Synod on the Family in Rome, I would hate to be in communion with many of the Roman church hierarchy, including the current Pope. Here is a sampling of ideas being discussed openly this week by Roman bishops:

• Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried
• General absolution for everyone
• A new catechetical approach for those living in sin
• An end to mean, exclusionary language calling homosexuality sin and homosexuals sinners
• Letting different parts of the world determine different approaches to dogma
• The ordination of women to the diaconate
• Avoiding calling sinful situations what they are because those are negative judgments

Now, I know Orthodoxy has a more nuanced approach to divorce and remarriage than Rome and I agree with it. Also, I know we have certain liberal priests (fortunately not Bishops) in places like Boston who are soft on homosexual sin, so who are we to throw stones.

But the liberal tendencies of RC bishops from Germany and Belgium, amongst other countries, are quite striking. Conservative Roman Catholics are fighting some significant battles just to preserve traditional Roman Catholic teaching on sex and marriage.

Would anybody here want to fight those battles within Orthodoxy for the sake of reunion with Rome?

I wouldn't.

 

[Michie]

But doesn't Jesus desire that we all become one? I understand feeling disillusioned trying to fight for orthodoxy within the Church itself but I have a feeling that that is the way it is going to be for Christians anymore.

 

[mark46]

Would anybody here want to fight those battles within Orthodoxy for the sake of reunion with Rome?

I wouldn't.

Why is this posted on this board? Perhaps you meant to post it on TAW.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Sorry, I meant to post this in the Orthodox forum and was really eliciting Orthodox opinion. But since it is here, please let me know your thoughts on the Synod and union with Orthodoxy.

This could be an interesting exchange of views.

 

[Anhelyna]

Perhaps it would be better to wait for the final announcement to be made at the end of the Synod instead of taking as true statements the sound bites from the various Clerics [Patriarchs Cardinals Bishops Priests ] present ?

As usual so far all we are getting is what the people there are telling us not what the Synod itself says

 

[Michie]

I don't think there is anything wrong with what he posted.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Discussing unorthodox and even outright heretical notions is one of the oldest Christian pastimes.

This is unfortunate, but not a mark against any sect of Christianity until those notions are endorsed.

So yes, it would be better to wait until the end of the Synod.

 

[Michie]

Liberal Bishops from
Belgium and Germany have always been quite vocal about their views. Even to the point of being disobedient.

at least, not the current Roman Church. Like most Orthodox, I have my differences with Roman Catholic theology, which I have expressed here and elsewhere: Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, the Immaculate Conception and absolute sinlessness of Mary, indulgences and purgatory, scholasticism, and others.

Yet I love a lot of conservative Roman Catholics, including my Opus Dei wife. And theoretically, I could not be happier if Roman Catholics became more Orthodox in theology and praxis, thereby enabling reunion of Rome with the Orthodox Church.

Yet based on some of the proposals made public at this week's Synod on the Family in Rome, I would hate to be in communion with many of the Roman church hierarchy, including the current Pope. Here is a sampling of ideas being discussed openly this week by Roman bishops:

• Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried
• General absolution for everyone
• A new catechetical approach for those living in sin
• An end to mean, exclusionary language calling homosexuality sin and homosexuals sinners
• Letting different parts of the world determine different approaches to dogma
• The ordination of women to the diaconate
• Avoiding calling sinful situations what they are because those are negative judgments

Now, I know Orthodoxy has a more nuanced approach to divorce and remarriage than Rome and I agree with it. Also, I know we have certain liberal priests (fortunately not Bishops) in places like Boston who are soft on homosexual sin, so who are we to throw stones.

But the liberal tendencies of RC bishops from Germany and Belgium, amongst other countries, are quite striking. Conservative Roman Catholics are fighting some significant battles just to preserve traditional Roman Catholic teaching on sex and marriage.

Would anybody here want to fight those battles within Orthodoxy for the sake of reunion with Rome?

I wouldn't.

 

[mark46]

But doesn't Jesus desire that we all become one? I understand feeling disillusioned trying to fight for orthodoxy within the Church itself but I have a feeling that that is the way it is going to be for Christians anymore.

One can choose to believe that one of the key prayers of Jesus would rejected by the Father, as most seem to believe. One might choose to believe that the Father has granted the prayer of Jesus. In this view, we are all one. We just refuse to recognize that oneness.
===========================
I mean no offense to others who are willing to bust up and keep churches separate because of the relatively minor differences between us. However, I think that much of the differences are a result of misunderstandings of man-made interpretations of dogma, doctrine and practice. I apologize for thinking that what others consider church-busting are minor items and minor priorities to me.

IMHO, as Nicene Christians who accept the primary sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, accept the visible Church and its early Traditions, the vast majority of Christians are united, when we choose to recognize that fact or not. CF tried to have a board for apostolic Christians to capture this group (CF now calls it Traditional Theology).

We choose to be separated with regard to whether we can accept Anglican or Lutheran bishops. We choose to be separated because we insist on supremacy instead of primacy of the pope. Many issues have been found to be a matter of misunderstanding. I suspect that the situation will continue for another century. Of course, the alarmists could be right this time, and this world will end before then.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Discussing unorthodox and even outright heretical notions is one of the oldest Christian pastimes.

This is unfortunate, but not a mark against any sect of Christianity until those notions are endorsed.

So yes, it would be better to wait until the end of the Synod.

Is it part of Roman Catholic tradition that significant factions of the church hierarchy would call into question traditional Roman Catholic teaching in a very public setting? We are not talking about one errant bishop.

To what end does it serve to have dialogue about established dogma and doctrine? I know such dialogue sounds terrifically democratic, but is the RC Church now a democracy?

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

One can choose to believe that one of the key prayers of Jesus would rejected by the Father, as most seem to believe. One might choose to believe that the Father has granted the prayer of Jesus. In this view, we are all one. We just refuse to recognize that oneness.
===========================
I mean no offense to others who are willing to bust up and keep churches separate because of the relatively minor differences between us. However, I think that much of the differences are a result of misunderstandings of man-made interpretations of dogma, doctrine and practice. I apologize for thinking that what others consider church-busting are minor items and minor priorities to me.

IMHO, as Nicene Christians who accept the primary sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, accept the visible Church and its early Traditions, the vast majority of Christians are united, when we choose to recognize that fact or not. CF tried to have a board for apostolic Christians to capture this group (CF now calls it Traditional Theology).

We choose to be separated with regard to whether we can accept Anglican or Lutheran bishops. We choose to be separated because we insist on supremacy instead of primacy of the pope. Many issues have been found to be a matter of misunderstanding. I suspect that the situation will continue for another century. Of course, the alarmists could be right this time, and this world will end before then.

 

[Michie]

I am told repeatedly that the church is not and never will be a democracy.

Is it part of Roman Catholic tradition that significant factions of the church hierarchy would call into question traditional Roman Catholic teaching in a very public setting? We are not talking about one errant bishop.

To what end does it serve to have dialogue about established dogma and doctrine? I know such dialogue sounds terrifically democratic, but is the RC Church now a democracy?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Is it part of Roman Catholic tradition that significant factions of the church hierarchy would call into question traditional Roman Catholic teaching in a very public setting? We are not talking about one errant bishop.

To what end does it serve to have dialogue about established dogma and doctrine? I know such dialogue sounds terrifically democratic, but is the RC Church now a democracy?

I don't think that what we are seeing now is any worse than what happened with the Arian heresy in terms of either what is being said or who is saying it. And the Arian heresy was debated at the Council of Nicea, even though I would say that Arianism was firmly against tradition by that time period.

I certainly don't think that such statements are good, but the Church has endured worse.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Mark46,

Maybe you are right. But just as union with Anglicans today is unthinkable for Orthodoxy, because Anglicans have sadly changed their teachings regarding a number of social issues, as well as the nature of the priesthood, so also it seems that union with the RCC is becoming more difficult, since some in the RC Church would have it change its traditional teachings regarding issues such as homosexuality.

Such change may enable Roman Catholics to dialogue about union more seriously with the Anglican Church (which would be frightening for RC traditionalists).

But from an Orthodox perspective, it seems like the RC Church is moving farther away, not closer, thereby militating against reunion.

 

[stray bullet]

The Catholic Church is not going to change teachings on homosexuality. Talking about those issues does not mean those issues are up for reversal - because that cannot be done. The Catholic Church is not a protestant church, reversing on previous beliefs. No bishop or pope in the present has the right to contradict the faith of the past.

Talking about those issues is exactly that. It's taking an active role and giving a voice to the serious issues of the day. It is an discussion of how to approach these, not a discussion on changing the faith.

Union with the Anglicans is impossible now. When they stopped validly ordaining clergy, that was pretty much it. Their clergy and generally not clergy. It's like a union with Baptists. But when they started having women as their clergy, it made it impossible.

 

[topcare]

But doesn't Jesus desire that we all become one?

Yes, but I am not sure at the expense of our convictions or the truth (which at this state is anyone's guess with all the confusion I have over one passage).

 

[GoingByzantine]

The title of this thread certainly drew me in.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Synods as currently taking place, are advisory to the Pope only.

They don't make doctrinal changes.

Jim

 

[dzheremi]

Well yeah, J4M. Nobody wants that, I don't think.

While I'm not in communion with either of you, I was Roman Catholic before converting to Coptic Orthodoxy, and I did spend the last 4 years living in the Coptic Orthodox Church in a historically very Roman Catholic state (New Mexico), so we as a community and myself in particular probably had a better view of Roman Catholicism than most Coptic Orthodox people (or at least more exposure to it), and still when I asked a friend from church what he thought of the Roman Catholic Church, he said something like "They are a modern church; we are not a modern church." I think that pretty much sums it up, without getting into the theological, ecclesiological, and other issues. The RC gets more and more modern, and the other churches with roots in the apostolic times (you guys, we OO, I guess maybe the ACoE, though I don't know much about them) try to engage them in a loving, brotherly fashion, but without compromising doctrine, and this is often misread as RCs as "agreement" where there is none. People will show me these "agreed statements" that the Copts or the Syriacs or whoever have drafted with Rome and when I say "Well, yes, but this is all very basic stuff we could also sign with the EO, or the ACoE, etc. It's worded in such a way as to apply to anyone, because it's only at this very basic level that includes almost all Christianity at which we can be said to comfortably agree", they suddenly become very cold. As though we're going back on the statements, or being rude, when really they don't understand that our churches are not "big tents", like how Rome has historically grown by absorbing more and more of the Christian East, even if that means the resulting communion is against itself in matters of praxis and theology (e.g., the Maronites are supposedly Chalcedonians but they themselves tell me that ~50% of their prayers in the liturgy or in particular rites are attributed to "Mor Yaqoob d'Serug" -- one of our OO Syriac Orthodox anti-Chalcedonian saints).

So none of the meetings between us and Rome have come to anything, because we have always had very different understandings of what these things that Rome thinks they've convinced us to sign on to actually mean. We, like you OO, have the conciliar/no infallible bishops model of church governance (our most recent deposed Pope was only in the 1950s or so, Pope Yusab II, and that was not even accepted by the Ethiopians, who gained their independence by the agreement during that same pope's tenure; this is no matter for us, because we are truly self-governing churches, something no Catholic church ever really has), and they do not. So it seems like at least historically, and to some degree currently, the RCC has become confused between "basic agreement" (on things that, again, almost anyone can agree with) and "open, mutually-accepted sacramental union".

Perhaps this Lutheran Satire video will help explain it in a nicer/lighter way to Catholics, so that I don't get in trouble.

(I don't know why HAH Bartholomew has a Russian accent, though I guess Pope Francis doesn't sound like Pauly Shore, either...)

 

[mark46]

I don't think there is anything wrong with what he posted.

I do. I think that it is out of line to posting that the subjects of the synod are the reason the RCC is out communion, and should be. We wouldn't have allowed that if a Baptist posted here. Let's wait to see what the synod says.