To end the Schism?

[Cappadocious]

Modernism continue to grow.

What differentiates you from a modernist?

Honest question.

 

[Albion]

My own view is that unity will probably not occur until Christianity comes under assault to such an extent that the numbers of believers shrink and shrink and shrink and the two sides are basically forced to unite in order to survive. This could happen within a few generations, especially if Atheism and Modernism continue to grow.

Yes, that's a possible scenario. However, houses that are divided have an amazing ability NOT to make common cause even when it's in the factions' best interests to do so.

 

[ChesterKhan]

My own view is that unity will probably not occur until Christianity comes under assault to such an extent that the numbers of believers shrink and shrink and shrink and the two sides are basically forced to unite in order to survive. This could happen within a few generations, especially if Atheism and Modernism continue to grow.

I'm not so worried. The Church started small and fractured (remember St. Paul's letter to Corinth?). In some places it disappeared almost completely. And then made a resurgence. Spain, Greece (it used to be under the Ottomans?), the Soviet Union. These are three examples.

Society will not last long if things continue the way they are going. These times remind me a great deal of the Roman Empire. Rome had a great amount of technology. It was the most advanced and influential power of its day. It grew decadent. It was on its downswing long before St. Constantine the Great. So it is today; there are many atheists and apostates. But there are also many coming to and back to the faith, be they evangelical Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox.

 

[Basil the Great]

What differentiates you from a modernist?

Honest question.

I guess an honest question deserves an honest answer, but why limit your question to myself? No doubt in many ways I am a Modernist, as are probably the vast majority of posters who are members of Christian Forums. It is all a matter of degree and a matter of interpretation.

(1) Orthodox and Catholics can make the case that all Protestants are Modernists and I believe that said case is a strong one. Throwing out such practices as praying to the saints, praying for the dead, believing in an intermediate state after death, holding to seven sacraments, the necessity of confession to a priest for grave sins, etc are examples of ignoring Christian tradition that goes back to the early days of the Church. How can one discard such and not be considered a Modernist?

(2) Fundamentalist Protestants would say that most Mainline and many Evangelical Protestants are Modernists for failing to adhere to a literal interpretation of Scripture and I guess their case is pretty strong also.

(3) The SSPX would contend that most Catholics have been infected by Modernism when they accept the two Vatican II teachings that they believe contradict Catholic doctrine, namely the teachings on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty. The Religious Liberty issue is a little more problematical, but hardly the one on Ecumenism. Yes, Vatican II contradicted the Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the right of religious liberty. However, the Syllabus of Errors was not an Infallible Papal Bull. Still, I suppose that the SSPX could say that the doctrine opposing religious liberty is protected by the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium? That is uncertain at best. Regardless, the three Infallible Papal Bulls from the Middle Ages are extremely specific regarding excluding particular groups from salvation. Yet, the Vatican II document on Ecumenism no longer automatically excludes said groups from the plan of salvation, due to "invincible ignorance". Don't get me wrong. As a non-Catholic, I am thrilled that Vatican II opened up the door for non-Catholics to possibly obtain salvation via "invincible ignorance". However, I must admit that said position does not conform to the three Infallible Papal Bulls from the Middle Ages that refer to the EENS salvation doctrine and thus a strong case can be made that most Catholics today have also been infected by Modernism.

(3) Now, so as to be fair to all, we certainly do not want to exclude our Eastern Orthodox brethren, though a case can be made that they have been infected by Modernism to a lesser degree. No doubt Traditional Catholics would say that some Eastern Orthodox priests who give permission to couples to use artificial contraception, for purposes of economy, are displaying an example of Modernism.

Yes, I admit that to some extent, I am certainly a Modernist. However, I dare say that most Christians alive today are Modernists, when compared to Christians living a few centuries ago.

 

[MKJ]

I guess an honest question deserves an honest answer, but why limit your question to myself? No doubt in many ways I am a Modernist, as are probably the vast majority of posters who are members of Christian Forums. It is all a matter of degree and a matter of interpretation.

(1) Orthodox and Catholics can make the case that all Protestants are Modernists and I believe that said case is a strong one. Throwing out such practices as praying to the saints, praying for the dead, believing in an intermediate state after death, holding to seven sacraments, the necessity of confession to a priest for grave sins, etc are examples of ignoring Christian tradition that goes back to the early days of the Church. How can one discard such and not be considered a Modernist?

(2) Fundamentalist Protestants would say that most Mainline and many Evangelical Protestants are Modernists for failing to adhere to a literal interpretation of Scripture and I guess their case is pretty strong also.

(3) The SSPX would contend that most Catholics have been infected by Modernism when they accept the two Vatican II teachings that they believe contradict Catholic doctrine, namely the teachings on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty. The Religious Liberty issue is a little more problematical, but hardly the one on Ecumenism. Yes, Vatican II contradicted the Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the right of religious liberty. However, the Syllabus of Errors was not an Infallible Papal Bull. Still, I suppose that the SSPX could say that the doctrine opposing religious liberty is protected by the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium? That is uncertain at best. Regardless, the three Infallible Papal Bulls from the Middle Ages are extremely specific regarding excluding particular groups from salvation. Yet, the Vatican II document on Ecumenism no longer automatically excludes said groups from the plan of salvation, due to "invincible ignorance". Don't get me wrong. As a non-Catholic, I am thrilled that Vatican II opened up the door for non-Catholics to possibly obtain salvation via "invincible ignorance". However, I must admit that said position does not conform to the three Infallible Papal Bulls from the Middle Ages that refer to the EENS salvation doctrine and thus a strong case can be made that most Catholics today have also been infected by Modernism.

(3) Now, so as to be fair to all, we certainly do not want to exclude our Eastern Orthodox brethren, though a case can be made that they have been infected by Modernism to a lesser degree. No doubt Traditional Catholics would say that some Eastern Orthodox priests who give permission to couples to use artificial contraception, for purposes of economy, are displaying an example of Modernism.

Yes, I admit that to some extent, I am certainly a Modernist. However, I dare say that most Christians alive today are Modernists, when compared to Christians living a few centuries ago.

I am a bit curious about your definition of "modernist"? You seem to be thinking of it in terms of having modern beliefs and leaving behind older traditions, but that isn't the usual meaning.

 

[~Anastasia~]

RCC & EOC - what exactly would it take to end the schism between the two churches?

I realize that is a loaded question & there are probably many factors involved - but maybe you could just give some basic points or thoughts?

My own view is that unity will probably not occur until Christianity comes under assault to such an extent that the numbers of believers shrink and shrink and shrink and the two sides are basically forced to unite in order to survive. This could happen within a few generations, especially if Atheism and Modernism continue to grow.

Our priest was expressing his belief that pressure from Islam will eventually cause reunification to become necessary for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Personally, I see the authority of the Pope to be the largest problem. I don't think the Orthodox will change what has always been done and come under a single head of authority in a human person. I'm not sure how or if the Papacy will be willing to concede.

The Filioque is another big issue of course. It might just be possible to dialogue and reach an agreement where the Catholics would be able to retain it along with a westernized form of liturgy, but I am not so sure, since the Creed represents our unity for the sake of Communion. I don't really see the liturgical style as being an insurmountable problem though.

As for things like purgatory and the immaculate conception, they are not Orthodox doctrines of course. However, they are allowed to be believed as a pious belief, if one choses, as the Orthodox Church has no competing dogma. I am told this is a concession for Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy. However, I have heard the same about the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (while living) ... and I have a hard time figuring out how that can be believed, since we celebrate the Dormition.

Overall, the Orthodox Church does not have such a detailed catechism as the Catholic Church, and allows quite a bit of freedom for people to believe according to their conscience on a great many things.

However, there ARE differences in soteriology that are important to me, and I would not like to see the Orthodox beliefs compromised for the sake of homogenizing with another Church.

I'm sure many Catholics would not like their faith to be compromised either.

If it's going to be possible, it's probably going to take a well-thought-out plan that takes into consideration all of these things mentioned in the thread as well as others, and a commitment to follow through in working the issues out, because I also think it would likely take at least a few generations.

It seems good for the Church if we were all one, but on the other hand, I love my Church and do not want to see such changes as it seems might happen. And I'm sure most Catholics probably feel the same way, or else they would be Orthodox.

 

[Albion]

Our priest was expressing his belief that pressure from Islam will eventually cause reunification to become necessary for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Who knows...but the last time they were similarly (or more immediately) endangered--just before the beginning of the Crusades--it didn't do anything for reunification.

Personally, I see the authority of the Pope to be the largest problem.

That's often said (and I would agree).

I'm not sure how or if the Papacy will be willing to concede.

It's hard to see how it could do so without undermining its basic doctrinal system.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Who knows...but the last time they were similarly (or more immediately) endangered--just before the beginning of the Crusades--it didn't do anything for reunification.

True. Though it could be argued that the world is a different place now, with the global nature of community, and so on. I'm not at all sure. It's not my opinion, but it seems as good as any. Who knows?

It's hard to see how it could do so without undermining its basic doctrinal system.

I agree with this as well. It seems to me - and I mean no insult by this - but it seems Catholics have painted themselves into a bit of a corner doctrinally. Papal infallibility seems to make it impossible to rescind some teachings, including the supposed universal authority of the Pope.

And unless the Orthodox Church essentially crumbles in its structure (God forbid!), I can't see them accepting things as they are.

Logically it would seem the only thing that could develop is something of an uneasy truce, a sort of side-by-side existence, that wasn't true communion at all.

But who can tell what the future may hold? It took centuries for the schism to develop, and we've had many centuries apart. There has been what - on the order of decades really of any move closer together? It may yet take centuries. That might make things possible.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me - and I mean no insult by this - but it seems Catholics have painted themselves into a bit of a corner doctrinally. Papal infallibility seems to make it impossible to rescind some teachings, including the supposed universal authority of the Pope.

And unless the Orthodox Church essentially crumbles in its structure (God forbid!), I can't see them accepting things as they are.

That is indeed the way a lot of observers see it.

 

[Cappadocious]

As for things like purgatory and the immaculate conception, they are not Orthodox doctrines of course. However, they are allowed to be believed as a pious belief, if one choses, as the Orthodox Church has no competing dogma.

Actually, there is an established condemnation of a certain sort of purgatory, the sort which was championed at the robber councils of Lyons/Florence-Ferrara.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Actually, there is an established condemnation of a certain sort of purgatory, the sort which was championed at the robber councils of Lyons/Florence-Ferrara.

Thank you, Cappadocious. I wasn't aware of that. I'm afraid I was repeating what my priest told me, which I'm sure he represents Orthodox doctrine correctly, but he tends not to give me all of the details. So I get the simple answers, but the more complex ones (or in this case even knowing there IS a more complex one) usually comes from being corrected. So I thank you very much for that, and please forgive me, everyone, for being incomplete.

 

[Cappadocious]

No need for apologies.

There are three general restrictions on conceptions of a purgative state in the afterlife:

1. There is no created purgatorial fire.
2. It is not punishment for sins.
3. Indulgences cannot remove "time" in this state.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No need for apologies.

There are three general restrictions on conceptions of a purgative state in the afterlife:

1. There is no created purgatorial fire.
2. It is not punishment for sins.
3. Indulgences cannot remove "time" in this state.

Ah, thank you very much.

In speaking with Catholics about purgatory, I do find some aspects to be "possible" although I think (for myself) that it falls in the realm of what we do not know. But logically some aspects make sense. However, it is precisely within the restrictions you list that it makes sense to me, with me having what I hope is an Orthodox point of view.

I feel reassured on that line of thinking with you specifically listing those restrictions. . Thank you so much!

 

[HoganWynne]

RCC & EOC - what exactly would it take to end the schism between the two churches?

I realize that is a loaded question & there are probably many factors involved - but maybe you could just give some basic points or thoughts?

Sorry, I skipped the posts following the op. I have to say that I have been of the mind for years that the schism will never heal, and does not need to. The odox will not accept catholic claims, the Catholics will not hear those of the Anglicans, etc.

We are all one in the Eucharist, wether you believe it or not.....just my 2 cents.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

RCC & EOC - what exactly would it take to end the schism between the two churches?

Glorify Jesus Christ!

With God, All things are possible. Pray for Charity and and Unity.