Healing the Great Schism: Catholic/Orthodox Reconciliation

9/22 | Vicomte13

[latae sententiae]

"For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."

Pope Pius IX, Moratalium Animos, Encyclical on Religious Unity, 1/6/28

[Vicomte13]

Interesting, but not applicable to the Orthodox Church.
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about Orthodoxy:


838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

[Kolokotronis]

The question of authority of the Pope certainly does divide us. One way to deal with that would be to have the Roman Church "simply" come to a great and holy council of the Church and put all the innovations of the West since the Seven Councils on the table for discussion. But you know, the "phronema", or mindset of the Church in the East and the Roman Church are almost at opposite poles. The Orthodox Church, heirarchs, clergy and people in "syndesmos", make up the Body of the Orthodox Church here on Earth with Christ the Pantokrator as its head. We all count, all have a say. Being Orthodox, living Orthodox, is nothing like being and living Roman Catholic. Half of my family is Irish Roman Catholic. They live in a world where the Church says "Do this or you'll go to Hell"; Pay, Pray and Obey. In the Orthodox world, as my good convert wife says, the Church says "Do this and you will become like God." See the difference? Centuries of conditioning lead to this and a Great Council won't change it, though its a good start. For myself, resident in the West, I suspect that a reunited Church would mean that I would be part of the Roman Church. Given the present state of the Roman Church and the history of that Church for the past 1000 years or so, I am compelled to say that I don't trust Rome to allow me, here, to continue to worship and believe as my people have for the past 17-1800 years. I'd like to be convinced that I'm wrong.

[RonF]

There is nothing of the liturgy of either Latin or Greek or Russian rite that would need to change were the Churches to come back into unity.

What about the filoque?

[Vicomte13]

The filoque would not need to change. The Eastern Rites would continue to use their variant of the Nicene Creed, and the Western Rite theirs. There is no "filoque" in the Apostle's Creed at all, yet both halves of the Church, Catholic and Orthodox, use it without damage to the faithful.
This is one of the distinctive differences between East and West, but it is not an excuse to keep sundered the Church that Christ made whole and called to be united.

[Vicomte13]

Of course if any Pope were to ever overreach his authority again, the option of schism always remains again. The true problem in today's Western Church is not papal authority anyway. It is the wholesale disregard of standards by the clergy in the parishes and the dioceses.

The only objective really needed to be sought is to bring the Churches back into full communion one with the other, so that Catholic and Orthodox are all "catholic", and presumably each "orthodox" in the practice of his particular rite. There is no good reason anymore to bind a practitioner of the Greek rite to the Roman rite. All of the rites are Holy and one of the lessons of the Schism ought to be an end to the insistence on one holy liturgy at the exclusion of others.
A Vatican III is certainly needed, to correct the excesses of Vatican II, and to make possible full communion between the two halves of the Church. One can only expect that the clear, traditional lines of the Orthodox bishops and metropolitans in such a grand Council would act as a lifeline for the beleaguered traditionalists of the West today.
The two halves of the Church need each other.
The price of unity in communion would be to leave each others' rites alone. All admit that Latin, Greek, and Russian rite are Holy. No one need be bound to abandon what is holy simply because of a demand for genuflection to a principle of obedience. Indeed, the principle of obedience that needs to be asserted by the Pope is that these holy rites shall be respected and retained, and that the Pope, as primus inter pares, will not permit the more politically minded of the various churches from stirring up these tired and destructive old sources of dissension. Scoring points against each other over matters that are within the scope of authority of the leaders of each rite is to lose points with God.

Example: filioque. This was a CHOICE. That choice need not be reversed in the West. And it need not be imposed in the East.

[AlbionGirl]

Huge BUMP for an excellent, expansive, Catholic post!!!

[Kolokotronis]

What you speak of is earnestly to be prayed for, but in all honesty, what do you do with the different phronemas of the East and the West? Our relationship with our priests and hierarchs, even our Patriarchs, is at base, conciliar. The Church belongs to and is operated by all of us. Because of our mindset with regard to the Faith, this has not been a source of trouble theologically but does mean that, for example, an Archbishop perceived by the Laos tou Theou, the People of God, to be oppressive and intent upon reducing them and their national hierarchs to the position and role of vassals to the Patriarch of Constantinople was driven from his position and replaced by one more acceptable to the people, the clergy and the national hierarchs. This very recently happened right here in America, friend. Would Rome countenance such a thing? Would Roman hierarchs in America rise up against the Pope and demand the removal of the senior national prelate? I actually participated in the first Diocesan Council in America in which, in the presence of our Metropolitan and the offending Archbishop himself, we, clergy and laity together, stood on the floor, denounced the man and called upon the Patriarch to remove him. The Council voted almost unanimously for this. This is just one, albeit rather dramatic, example of how different the Churches are in function and mindset. Your formulation, "...need not be imposed in the East." It speaks to the very phronema problem about which I have written. If a Council of the whole Church chose to accept the fillioque, it would not be "imposed" on the Church, it would be the will of God as expressed by the Church in Council. Without a Council, no one or group should feel it is being generous, or concessionary by agreeing not to "impose" it on the Church. Getting into the fllioque argument here is pointless. We've beaten that dead horse to a pulp. Suffice it to say that the Nicene Creed of the Council does not contain fillioque. If at a Great Council, the whole Church (and that means including you and me, not just hierarchs and priests, chose to insert those words, fine.

[AlbionGirl]

This very recently happened right here in America, friend. Would Rome countenance such a thing? Would Roman hierarchs in America rise up against the Pope and demand the removal of the senior national prelate? I actually participated in the first Diocesan Council in America in which, in the presence of our Metropolitan and the offending Archbishop himself, we, clergy and laity together, stood on the floor, denounced the man and called upon the Patriarch to remove him.

Very interesting. We could have used such muscularity when the pederast scandal first broke. Instead we kept our voices down and our wallets open. Nothing worse for the Faith than a flaccid, go along to get along, Laity.

[Kolokotronis]

And therein lies a great difference in both phronema and praxis. Not one hierarch, save the offending Archbishop, ever even mentioned excommunication and at least one Metropolitan publicly scoffed at the idea. During your late troubles, we kept expecting you to follow our lead...but nothing happened. What do you suppose would have happened had you risen up? By the way, after the removal of the Archbishop, tiny fringe elements hoped that the way was open for their radical, ECUSA type agendas. They were disappointed. A larger, well financed group hoped to move the Church in the direction of a form of congregationalism. They failed to. The Laos tou Theou knows when to move and when not to move. The Holy Spirit gives discernment to the Church when the Church is structured so that discernment can develop and be acted upon.

[Kolokotronis]

ping

[AlbionGirl]

How prostrate the Laity was in response to this marrow deep corruption will be to our everlasting shame. Who could have imagined that the children of Peter, Paul, Stephen could be so cowered by fear, and so uplifted by convenience?

The Western Church is in serious trouble, it's membership roster notwithstanding. Large numbers mean nothing, when the Faith has been diluted in the attempt to gain these numbers. Not addressing the corruption from the bottom up has assured the Church's continued demise. If the Laity had any rigor, any vigor, some of those Bishops would have been dragged by their collars, down the flight of stairs of their respective parishes.

Moving a pederast from one Parish to another is a much graver Sin than the Pederast's sin. His is a sin of the perversion of the flesh, those who moved him around are guilty of Sins of perversion of the Spirit. They knowingly exposed young, innocent boys to the horrors of pederasty. Allowed, facilitated the ruination of their lives. And what does such a man say when it is found out, 'I'm getting the blame for someone else's wrong doing', that is supposedly Bishop Law's latest lament. And yet, he sits in Rome at the right hand of the Holy Father, living not a meagre life of repentence and redemption, but a full, $140,000 worth of a cushy life. How can any sane Catholic not howl in rage and disgust? How?

[NYer]

Thank you for your beautiful post that comes from the heart! It is long past the time when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches need to be re-united. You have only scratched the surface in identifying some of the obstacles; however, I am sure that both want and "need" this union. We are in a time of great religious turmoil. Our enemies, The Muslims, stand at the door and seek to destroy 'our' religious convictions. It is a well established fact that the key to success is to divide and conquer. We are already divided; all that remains is to conquer.

The Holy Father has made some progress in establishing his desire to see all of us united. More importantly, though, it is the desire of Christ and His blessed mother.

It is what Jesus intended from the beginning. What God has joined, let no man sunder. With God, everything is possible.

Our Lady of Soufanieh

The main message Our Lady of Soufanieh and Our Lord tell us is: UNITY OF HEARTS. UNITY OF CHRISTIANS.

This book is a “new voice” that presents the deeper message of Soufanieh for the universal Church which is called to unity, especially the call for Orthodox and Catholics to become one as they were for the first 1000 years of Christianity. The Author explores not only unity for all Christians but love and unity for each family. Soufanieh is a call for Christian Unity and for love and unity in millions of families which will lead to Christian Unity. Father Fox went to Damascus and grasped the reality that Soufanieh is to the East what Fatima is to the West. Those of the Soufanieh Community reviewed this book before going to print and were amazed and thrilled that finallly the truth and love for unity between East and West as called for by heaven will be made known to millions more by a priest from the West who accepted those of the East with love. Finally a sensitivity to the East is shown in presenting the Mother of the East as the Mother of us all who wants her children one in her Son Jesus Christ.

Light from the East - Miracles of Our Lady of Soufanieh

[Tantumergo]

"I suspect that a reunited Church would mean that I would be part of the Roman Church. Given the present state of the Roman Church and the history of that Church for the past 1000 years or so, I am compelled to say that I don't trust Rome to allow me, here, to continue to worship and believe as my people have for the past 17-1800 years. I'd like to be convinced that I'm wrong."

You must be joking! If any such reunion were to take place, the only problem you Greeks would have would be trying to accommodate the vast numbers of disaffected Latins that would come knocking on your doors!

Another good reason to keep things as they are!

;)

[Bombardier]

Perhaps the fears of the East would be quelled if the Patriarchs were favored for election to the Papacy.

Wouldn't bother this Catholic one bit. I would love to see a reunification of God's Holy Church. Now, more than at any time in the past 700 years we need for ALL Christians to be speaking with ONE voice. I realize our Protestant bretheren wouldn't like what many Catholic priests have to say....Hell, I don't like what many priests say, but the respect I have for the word of the Holy Father overrides that. Many priests are living sinful, and indeed wicked lives. Perhaps if all of Christ's disciples were speaking with one voice, some of the evils of the clergy AND the laity might be stopped....and maybe His church would be able to aid its oppressed children in the mohammedan world.

[Kolokotronis]

You may be right. The disaffected Latins who have showed up around here, as a group, have a tough time "getting with the program". Some of them, but by no means all, are real nut cases! Roman Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, is part of the very fiber of our lives. Our religious beliefs, if we are serious about them, in great measure determine the way we view the whole world and ourselves in it. As for us, my wife says we "walk Orthodox". I know that Roman Catholicism has had the same effect on my Irish family. But we walk differently, and not just in our ecclesiology. I imagine that were I to become convinced of the correctness of the post schism teachings of the Roman Church, ecclesiology and all, nevertheless it would take an effort at humility beyond my feeble power to change my Orthodox walk into a Roman one. I think the very great commonality of our theology and sacramental praxis makes the change, for either of us, very difficult, but not imposssible. In my experience, the people who have the easiest time converting to Orthodoxy are Episcopalians (and, perhaps not so strangely and even more easily, black Africans). I don't really know why (I do have some ideas regarding the Africans). Fundamentalist protestants, once they have studied themselves into Orthodoxy, jump in with both feet, but for years and years, their Orthodoxy is more a coat over their protestantism, or even, in some more perverse cases, a desire to have what they think the Roman Church has without going so far as to actually become Roman. In any event, their Orthodoxy seems all bound up with what they think are the "rules". Most, eventually, get over that, stop being, as a priest once said "Protestants, vested and swinging the theemiato (thurifer)." and the rest of us start arguing about what part of Greece their family came from! I suspect, friend, that we will be leaving things as they are for a long time to come, though given the threat presented by the Mohammadans to Christian civilization, that's a damn shame.

[kosta50]

This is a good spirited post. I think we all share that spirit of reconciliation, but we also realize the difficulties that have accumilated over the millenium.

What Vicomte suggests may be very close to what the Pope suggests -- two fully autonomous "lungs" in the same body. There is a political element of resistance by those who see this as "concession" to the East and a diminishing if not outright insulting the primacy of the Pope. There is probably an equally adamant element among the Orthodox who cringe at the though of "becoming" Catholic.

I also think that all of you who participated correctly identified the very cause of continued split: the papacy. It is not that the Orthodox do not recognize the Pope as the first in honor, it is that they refuse to recongize him as their sovereign lord to whom they submit, not out of reverence, but out of juridical authority. I think the example of the Supreme Court is an excellent parallel to understanding how the Primitive Church was organized and how the orthodox Church is still organized or disorganized, whichever you prefer.

Kolokotronis made an excellent point when he mentioned that the Orthodox Church is truly the gathering of all believers (ekklesia) and that the laity have a duty to co-govern the Church instead of being passive and obedient spectators. Incidentally, Saint Cyprian proposed that the faithful should have the right to "depose" a bishop -- a view that earned him rejection and scorn by the Roman Pontiff, along with the charge of heresy. Cyrpian was a great proponent of princely popes, but he also had a profoundly 'eastern' view of the limits of that princely office.

My two cents' worth is a basic understanding of the word communion. Churches that profess the same faith are theologically in communion with each other. A Church is where the bishop is and any two bishops whose ekklesia profess the same faith are in spiritual communion.

What Vicomte purposes, in good faith and with a good heart, is a political communion of churches that, despite their proximity in many things and common roots and Apostolic tradition and valid clergy, are neither spiritually nor administratively identical or even close enough to be able to simply state that what Rome teaches and what Constantinople or Moscow teach is one and the same theology, or one and the same concept of the church.

I agree with Kolekotronis that a Vatican III should place all issues on the table and let the clergy and the laity decide if we can come to a common faith and a common vision of the Church. I share Kolokotronis's skepticism that we can for all the reasons mentioned above and in the endless debates that have taken place since the Vatican II and even before that.

The Church can be one if, for the start, the Church of the West were to return completely to the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and re-open for discussion all the additions and innovations to the faith (which would of course hold for the Church of the East equally). That would mean (perhaps temorarily) disengaging one thousand years of Roman Catholicism (which leads in such inniovations) and everything the RCC taught since the Great Schism. Frankly, no matter how much we all may wish that, it will never happen. No church will ever have to admit that it was wrong.

[kosta50]

ping

[kosta50]

Fundamentalist protestants, once they have studied themselves into Orthodoxy, jump in with both feet, but for years and years, their Orthodoxy is more a coat over their protestantism...

Excellent observation! Orthodoxy is all about relationship, not rules. Unfortunately, trying to explain or argue a point with someone schooled in "rules" with feelings is not very effective. Thus, sometimes, we (Orthodox) have to use the method understood by the receiving party.