I don't want Orthodox union with Rome

[Jesus4Madrid]

at least, not the current Roman Church.

(I mistakenly posted this on the OBOB forum but it really belongs here, since it is directed at Orthodox).

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.

 

[Anhelyna]

The fact that these ideas are being 'discussed' doesn't mean that everyone is discussing them . The participants in the Synod are doing most of the talking in small groups - organised by language use I understand.

Yes - some of the participants are saying afterwards what they have said - but what we are hearing is what the press is telling us , and as we know .........

I'm sure that at the end of the Synod we will get a more official idea as to how things went.

 

[buzuxi02]

As eveyone here can vouch im against union and virtually all forms of ecumenism.
Unfortunately our leaders are taking us down the path of schism. This is most apparent in the GOARCH, between modernists and traditionalists, between greek liberal cultural christians and greek conservative cultural christians, between ecumenists and non-ecumenists.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Orthodoxy will never unite with Rome, unless they repent of their heresies.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't know many TAWers who wouldn't look at this thread title, and without any discussion, just say, "yep."

 

[Wgw]

The alternative to union with Rome is that Rome does someting moronic like allow gay marriage, and then the Orthodox would finally be in a definitive position to establish an alternative Roman Patriarchate to collect the disaffected Roman Catholic; I expect something like gay marriage would cause most RCs to leave (if what has happened with the mainline Protestants is any indication). However what would be preferrable to that would be a reconciliation which had the effect of correcting theological error in the existing RC church. The main problem as I see it is the sort of belligerent Papism that began with Archbishop Victor I (who did not style himself Pope; that title at the time was used only by the bishop of Alexandria).

 

[dzheremi]

Is there any reason outside of courtesy that the EO are not in the position to do so right now, even without the RCC allowing gay marriage or whatever? I was under the impression that once Rome is out, they're out and it is not considered unlawful to establish competing patriarchates in territory that their bishop claims. This has certainly been the behavior in...ahem...other historical situations.

There are EO metropolitans like HE Met. Gennadios (Zervos), so it's not like there's no presence there. (I thought I had remembered something about an Antiochian metropolitan by the name of Silouan there, as well, but it seems that he's actually the metropolitan of Buenos Aires. Oops. Maybe the Antiochians do have one there though, too.)

Also, it seems like "a reconciliation which had the effect of correcting theological error in the existing RC church" is the only one that would ever actually happen, unless the EO want to deal with unrepentant heretics rushing in on a gigantic scale, looking to be baptized before they are ready and understanding what they actually must believe (since plenty of people who would leave the RCC over gay marriage would obviously not leave because of bad ecclesiology, bad theology, or anything else they're fine with in the current RC church, so long as it is conservative in the areas that the people themselves prioritize).

 

[GregConstantine]

That is a very good question. I've wondered that myself. Why don't we, or why didn't we "re-establish" the patriarch of Rome after the schism? I suppose perhaps some of it was political, as the re-established Roman Patriarch would have been in an hostile environment right after the schism. But I still wonder why not now? I suppose politics would be the answer again, as it always seems to be the answer in cases like these.

I would love to see us do a massive re-evangelism of Western Europe.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I don't know many TAWers who wouldn't look at this thread title, and without any discussion, just say, "yep."

I know but unfortunately what happens in Rome affects Orthodoxy.

First, we should all hope for reunion with Rome and all Christians, so that we can be "one" as Jesus is with the Father. (Jn 17:21). So, I think ambivalence about the heterodox sliding into greater heresy is not really appropriate. We should hope and pray that all Christians would become more Orthodox. Rome seems to be doing just the opposite.

Second, if Rome accommodates the world on issues such as the family, homosexual marriage, divorce, etc., it hurts our common witness. One area where Orthodox are looking to Rome for support in Europe is with respect to family issues. Met. Hilarion Alfeyev has pointed to Rome as an ally in the fight against encroaching secularism. How long will they be a reliable ally, when some of their bishops, including the papal spokesman at the Synod this week, believe the Church should accommodate practicing homosexuals and not label their activity "sin"?

Third, unfortunately heterodox theology can creep into Orthodoxy. There is a lot of pressure on Orthodox priests to accept secular values or risk being ostracised. My priest gets tired of trying to justify constantly why we do not have women priests. Were Rome to bend to secularism with respect to a number of sexual and family issues, it would be more difficult for Orthodox priests to maintain a traditional Christian theology. I think something similar has happened to Roman Catholic priests in Germany, who have been secularised by liberal Protestant theology.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Is there any reason outside of courtesy that the EO are not in the position to do so right now, even without the RCC allowing gay marriage or whatever? I was under the impression that once Rome is out, they're out and it is not considered unlawful to establish competing patriarchates in territory that their bishop claims. This has certainly been the behavior in...ahem...other historical situations.

There are EO metropolitans like HE Met. Gennadios (Zervos), so it's not like there's no presence there. (I thought I had remembered something about an Antiochian metropolitan by the name of Silouan there, as well, but it seems that he's actually the metropolitan of Buenos Aires. Oops. Maybe the Antiochians do have one there though, too.)

Also, it seems like "a reconciliation which had the effect of correcting theological error in the existing RC church" is the only one that would ever actually happen, unless the EO want to deal with unrepentant heretics rushing in on a gigantic scale, looking to be baptized before they are ready and understanding what they actually must believe (since plenty of people who would leave the RCC over gay marriage would obviously not leave because of bad ecclesiology, bad theology, or anything else they're fine with in the current RC church, so long as it is conservative in the areas that the people themselves prioritize).

Of course, a more liberal Roman Church would create an opportunity for Orthodoxy to attract traditional Roman Catholics, perhaps via the Western Rite [poster throws bomb and then runs quickly away]

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Thus says Metr. Hilarion Alfeyev regarding Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue:
"In dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church we proceed from the fact that this is a Church which has preserved apostolic succession in its hierarchy as well as having a doctrine on the sacraments which is very similar to our doctrine. It is also very important that both Orthodox and Catholics have the same moral foundations and a very similar social doctrine.

The theological differences between Rome and the Orthodox East are well known. Apart from a number of aspects in the realm of dogmatic theology, these are the teaching on primacy in the Church and, more specifically, on the role of the bishop of Rome. This topic is discussed within the framework of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue which has been taking place for several decades at sessions of a joint commission specially established for this purpose.

But today a different problem is acquiring primary importance — the problem of the unity of Orthodox and Catholics in the cause of defending traditional Christianity. To our great regret, a significant part of Protestant confessions by the beginning of the 21st century has adopted the liberal values of the modern world and in essence has renounced fidelity to Biblical principles in the realm of morality. Today in the West, the Roman Catholic Church remains the main bulwark in the defence of traditional moral values — such, for example, as marital fidelity, the inadmissibility of artificially ending human life, the possibility of marital union as a union only between man and woman.

Therefore, when we speak of dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, I believe that the priority in this dialogue today should not be the question of the filioque or the primacy of the Pope. We should learn to interact in that capacity that we find ourselves in today — in a state of division and absence of Eucharistic communion. We ought to learn how to perceive each other not as rivals but as allies by understanding that we have a common missionary field and encounter common challenges. We are faced with the common task of defending traditional Christian values, and joint efforts are essential today not out of certain theological considerations but primarily because we ought to help our nations to survive. These are the priorities which we espouse in this dialogue."

 

[buzuxi02]

No one is going to establish an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome because its in no ones interest to do so. There are canonical implications that simply makes it better that it remains defunct.
In fact the entire theory of pentarchy is obselete having given way to autocephalous churches.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I lived most of my life in the Catholic Church, and at times have even gone back to the Catholic Church. It is so utterly lost from Orthodoxy, so FAR from our traditions, values, theology, and piety that it's almost another solar system of religious thought. I could care less about reunion. We don't have a bond with them or a shared vision of Christianity. I don't really see the point in concerning ourselves in the goings-on of Catholicism. Do I wish them well? ABSOLUTELY! Do I wish they didn't have a crazy pope who sounds like Oprah? YES! Do I think a strong Catholic Church is a good thing in many ways for the West? Sure. But ultimately Orthodoxy is "THE" Church. Catholicism is a lost schismatic slice that drifted away from the rest of the pie.

Orthodoxy has enough problems, so I don't see much value in worrying about the Catholics. I myself am guilty of this, so I confess hypocrisy. I've talked about the Pope lately and why I think he's off his theological rocker and not a solid leader. So I'm guilty of this for sure.

But I submit that ecumenism isn't very important, and cleaning our own house is most important. We have plenty of secular humanism entering the Orthodox Church and modern mentalities muddying the waters. We even see this in TAW from time to time. Orthodoxy has a lot of issues, so worrying about being cozy with Catholicism or not is something we should take off our radar. I don't think the two churches will EVER reunite under any circumstances anyway. I don't see Catholicism moving toward Orthodoxy. They may flirt with icons or bring back some incense or like aspects of our faith, but the core understandings of God's economy and the bulk theology of the faith are vastly different.

 

[Goatee]

What are the main difference between the Orthodox and the Roman church? I do not know. I know i could Google it but it would be nice to see some personal examples from true believers. Thanks

 

[Tallguy88]

Interesting topic.

 

[GregConstantine]

"What are the main difference between the Orthodox and the Roman church?"

I think it lies in two main areas:

Ecclesiology=how do we understand what the Church is

The Fallen Condition of Humanity, specifically how are we "sinful" before God. Are we born sinners? Are we born guilty of someone else's sins? Or is the answer something different?

All the other differences I think stem from these two main areas.

It's probably better that you ask here. Doing a google search will result in a lot of websites trying to tell you there are no differences, especially from RC sources. They'll try to claim that the differences are solely political, or so minor that they don't understand why we weren't reunited yesterday.

There are differences and they are important and they do matter.

 

[seekingsolace]

What are the main difference between the Orthodox and the Roman church? I do not know. I know i could Google it but it would be nice to see some personal examples from true believers. Thanks

Impressive beards.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

For what it's worth, I have a love/hate relationship with the scholasticism related to the RCC. I feel like some of it is necessary, but you need to temper it with a healthy dose of -- I don't have the correct wording for this, but I think you'll get what I'm meaning -- mysticism. Otherwise, you remove the true essence of spirituality from faith, and the mystical portions of spirituality are part of the human experience. Too much scholasticism results in things like legalism, which makes the experience robotic and devoid of the spirituality present (or at least nascent) in the majority of people.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe if Catholicism implodes we'll get a massive exodus of faithful Catholics who have a strong moral foundation but need the theological richness and consistency and beauty of Orthodoxy? That would be good I guess.

 

[Lukaris]

I think in the last 100 years, in much of the world, there was much for Orthodox and Catholics to feel a common bond of good will but realize formal unity might never happen. While this can persist among discerning & basically informed laity of both churches (however many are ), Christians in both churches had better remember the parable of the wise vs. foolish virgins in Matthew 25:1-13 in light of the conduct of hierarchies & other laity who lord over them with costly, worldly burdens & diminished faith.