Towards Unity between Orthodox and Catholic Churches

[Hail Mary]

OP Note: This is a schism from this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56551).

One of Pope Benedict XVI's first acts was to declare his fundamental committment to heal the rift between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Undoubtably, there are deep wounds, and not everyone is ready to forgive wrongs and move towards unity. Nevertheless, my assertion is that Benedict XVI's committment combined with Pope John Paul II's efforts towards unity with the Orthodox Churches, and the movements and responses of Orthodox leaders, will bring an end to the great schism of 1054.

First I would like to outline the ways in which I think this has already begun, and then follow it up with challenges that still need to be addressed. As a preface, I don't really see anything controversial in any of these items, but Jezz may differ in his opinion, and thus this thread has been created. (Mr Chairman, I also ask for permission to revise and extend my remarks.)

Towards Unity

1) Pope John Paul II's official apology in 2001 for wrongs committed against the Orthodox Churches will be taken to heart by some Orthodox. There are those who will demand a separate apology for each individual sin, but there are those within the Orthodox faith who will forgive based upon John Paul II's apology: "For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him."
Brothers, forgive our trespasses. At this point Jezz seems to think its important that I try and find ways in which Orthodox have sinned against the Catholics, but I don't see the necessity for this. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of our Church.

2) Some Orthodox leaders responded to Pope John Paul II's moves. The apology and his return of relics were viewed positively by some Orthodox leaders. For example Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople said:"This brotherly gesture by the church of Ancient Rome confirms that in the church of Christ there are no problems which are insurmountable, when love, justice and peace meet."

3) The growth of the eastern rite within the Catholic Church will help bring us together. One of the underlying causes of the 1054 schism, the fillioque, is now optional within the eastern rite of the Catholic Church and is no longer a point of contention. Eastern rites within the Catholic Church have also served to educate the rest of the Catholic world to the traditions and beliefs of the Orthodox.

4) Secular pressure to adopt contemporary "issues of the day" coupled with the growth of democracy, will create a political climate in which the beliefs of Catholics and Orthodox will be better protected by uniting. This is already bringing Catholics and Protestants closer in the USA, and this trend will continue and increase globally as issues surrounding war, gay marriage, abortion, terrorism, cloning, bio-genetic testing, etc... continue to grow as central issues we both must address. Eventually this will bring a call for a joint Ecumenical Council, perhaps even including some Protestants, and the rest will be history!

Challenges

Sometimes, the best way to proceed in initial negotiations is to find areas of agreement and move forward with those issues. But its also important to define areas where its going to be difficult to reach agreement in order to avoid getting bogged down in discussions. (The oft-quoted quagmire)

A) The most problematic area is going to be primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but it is not necessary to resolve this in order to work together. The Catholic Church would accept historic representation within an Ecumenical Council, and in order to facilitate this, Benedict XVI (or his successors) will declare the council's decisions binding on all Catholics. We also have extensive precedence for working together without agreeing on the role of the Bishop of Rome.

[tizzidale]

The growth of the eastern rite within the Catholic Church will help bring us together. One of the underlying causes of the 1054 schism, the fillioque, is now optional within the eastern rite of the Catholic Church and is no longer a point of contention. Eastern rites within the Catholic Church have also served to educate the rest of the Catholic world to the traditions and beliefs of the Orthodox.

I have to say that the more I read and try to understand the filioque, the more I think that it is a very different understanding of the Holy Trinity and you will be hard pressed to find a quorum of Orthodox who will allow it to be thought of as merely an alternative opinion.

rusty

[Hail Mary]

I have to say that the more I read and try to understand the filioque, the more I think that it is a very different understanding of the Holy Trinity and you will be hard pressed to find a quorum of Orthodox who will allow it to be thought of as merely an alternative opinion.

I would be interested in hearing why you think its a very different understanding of the Holy Trinity. Obviously I have some thoughts in mind, but my perspectives on the filioque have all been from within the view of Catholicism.

Yet, that said, the filioque hasn't stopped the growth of the Eastern rite within Catholicism itself, the Latin rite believes the filioque, the Eastern rite does not. (Alert - Raw speculation follows) Its even possible we might return to the Nicene creed as it was written in some larger redefinition of the rites within the Catholic Church. (I'm not a canon lawyer and could be wrong)

[tizzidale]

The very 'problem' of the Eastern Rite (for it is a problem in the Orthodox perspective - not a bridge to reunion, more like an hindrance), is that two very different understandings of key theological issues are allowed to co-exist as if they were not key at all - as if the Councils had not forbidden any change to the Creed. The Orthodox Church has a wide variety of 'theological opinions' expressed by various members and leaders, but what you will be hard-pressed to find is disunity in the expressed dogma of the Church - and that is exactly what the Nicene Creed is : dogma - so much so that any who would change the Creed were anathematized by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

As for as the differences, may I direct you to this very well-written essay: http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf

rusty

[Hail Mary]

The very 'problem' of the Eastern Rite (for it is a problem in the Orthodox perspective - not a bridge to reunion, more like an hindrance), is that two very different understandings of key theological issues are allowed to co-exist as if they were not key at all - as if the Councils had not forbidden any change to the Creed. The Orthodox Church has a wide variety of 'theological opinions' expressed by various members and leaders, but what you will be hard-pressed to find is disunity in the expressed dogma of the Church - and that is exactly what the Nicene Creed is : dogma - so much so that any who would change the Creed were anathematized by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

This is probably where Jezz is going to say I'm unable to support my position, but all I can say is that there is a movement going on from within Catholicism and it is a move towards the Orthodox. The issue of the filioque is not going to stop this movement from the Catholic perspective, and I'm surely not going to enhance this movement by quibbling for the filioque, its history, reasoning and/or authorship.

About the eastern rite, if you think we have two different understandings of 'key' theological issues, then isn't it logical that we should grow the eastern rite which would undoubtably be a move towards your 'key' theological point of view?

[furay]

Now, I'm pretty ignorant, but haven't the so-called "Eastern Rite" Catholics historically been more of a divisive issue than a unifying one for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[George Blaisdell]

"For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him."


If I try to pull this kind of confession with my confessing Father, I will not receive forgiveness. Confession is specific, and describes actions and motives, and although there are some who just give the generic confession and do receive absolution, these are not ones who benefit from confession. Confession is supposed to be painful and humbling through shame for our thoughts, words and deeds. For me to just say "Forgive me for all the things I have done wrong, Lord..." is to make of confession a farce...

That is why such a blanket 'confession' on the part of the Pontif for the sake of reconciliation is counter-productive, because in the eyes of the Orthodox, who see actions, and not just words, as the true measure of confession and repentance, see this kind of confession as a cop-out... And that does not mean that they doubt the sincerity of the Pope, but that it does cast aspersions on his understanding of what it is that constitutes efficacious confession and repentance. Instead, it comes across to us as a negotiational ploy for re-unification UNDER the Pontif, when what is needed is for the Roman Church to voluntarily bring Herself utterly under the aegis of the Canonical Orthodox Church, and the first 7 councils, and confess her having strayed from those councils in doctrine and action against that Church, and to make an effort at turning away from those errors.

That is how it works. We have not changed and added new doctrines. And when a Church does indeed change and add new doctrines, and takes itself out of our Communion, then re-entry comes from repentance that follows real confession.

It is not a matter of negotiating between two opposing and somewhat equal 'positions', but is a matter of prodigality, and turning away from error, and return to the Church of the first thousand years. That Church still exists, and we pray for our Roman Brethren to return.

Yet you are right, because Rome IS indeed moving toward the east, and all she really needs to do is to return to the Church of the first thousand years of Christianity, and the Apostolic Church will be re-united with Rome again. And until She does so, how can She possibly re-join?

Arsenios

[Hail Mary]

Now, I'm pretty ignorant, but haven't the so-called "Eastern Rite" Catholics historically been more of a divisive issue than a unifying one for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

Some people will use this as a wedge issue. For those people, I'm supposed to complain about confiscation of Eastern Catholic land and churches, Orthodox respond it was the communists who actually confiscated it and now we're leading their membership astray, we complain they have our properties now so they should give it back, they say we have their members, someone eventually sceams heretic, and its downhill from there.

There are numerous historical issues, but I don't think its wise to concentrate on the divisive issues when working out initial cooperation. What would it take for us to get to an Ecumenical Council, I think that should be the driving issue.

[spiritmech]

If the filioque isn't a big issue, then I'm sure the Catholics will have no problem removing it, not only from the Eastern rites, but from the Latin rites as well. See? Problem solved. Good thing it was so minor.
sm

[Jezz]

One of Pope Benedict XVI's first acts was to declare his fundamental committment to heal the rift between Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
I did see Pope Benedict's opening decree. But I was not that impressed. While no doubt well-intentioned, what he basically said was "I'm willing to work towards unity as long as we're not required to admit that we were wrong." But healing of schisms in the history of the Church has never, ever happened that way. In the Tradition of the Church, full schisms (as opposed to local schisms) were only ever healed when the offending party confesses and repents of their error. Schisms are not healed by ignoring the past offences.

Undoubtably, there are deep wounds, and not everyone is ready to forgive wrongs and move towards unity. Nevertheless, my assertion is that Benedict XVI's committment combined with Pope John Paul II's efforts towards unity with the Orthodox Churches, and the movements and responses of Orthodox leaders, will bring an end to the great schism of 1054.
And my assertion is that the great schism of 1054 will only end when one of two things happens:

1. The Orthodox admit that they have no right to disobey the pope to the pope.
2. The Pope admits that he has no right to exercise authority over other Churches.

This is what caused the schism in the first place, and the schism won't be healed until the issue that caused it has been resolved. You can talk about all the other stuff as much as you like - it's just window dressing. This is the fundamental issue, and it's not going to go away by wishful thinking.

First I would like to outline the ways in which I think this has already begun, and then follow it up with challenges that still need to be addressed. As a preface, I don't really see anything controversial in any of these items, but Jezz may differ in his opinion, and thus this thread has been created. (Mr Chairman, I also ask for permission to revise and extend my remarks.)
Ok.

Towards Unity

1) Pope John Paul II's official apology in 2001 for wrongs committed against the Orthodox Churches will be taken to heart by some Orthodox. There are those who will demand a separate apology for each individual sin, but there are those within the Orthodox faith who will forgive based upon John Paul II's apology: "For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him."
Brothers, forgive our trespasses. At this point Jezz seems to think its important that I try and find ways in which Orthodox have sinned against the Catholics, but I don't see the necessity for this. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of our Church.
I vehemently disagree. Here is what the official Roman Catholic Catechism has to say about repentance:

Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."

When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."

From here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM).

Now, the above is more-or-less Orthodox (though the Orthodox recognise differences in degrees of sin, they don't have a hard-and-fast dividing line between "venial" and "mortal" sins as the Roman Catholics do - a distinction that was introduced by the scholastics). And, as I pointed out in the original thread from which this thread was spawned, this was an issue of contention during the Lutheran Reformation - with Lutherans holding (as ave_maria is now holding) that a thorough examination of the conscience and recounting of all sins discovered thereby was not necessary. The Roman Catholics at the time held their ground - reaffirming the position above. This is one issue that I think that the Roman Catholics were absolutely right on, and the Lutherans were a little bit off-kilter. Unless one actually makes an effort to enumerate all their individual sins and apologise for each one individually, then the confession will be of limited effectiveness.

Note that this insistence on enumerating all sins is not a matter of being unwilling to forgive. If someone wrongs me, then the right thing to do is to forgive them immediately. God certainly does that. It is wrong to bear a grudge and withold forgiveness as a form of revenge (as some Orthodox do).

Why then, do I insist that an enumeration of sins is necessary? For the same reason that the Church does - not for the benefit of the forgiver, but for the benefit of the penitent. God does not demand our repentance because He needs it - He demands our repentance because remaining unrepentant is spiritually damaging to a person. Absolving a person (or a church) of sins for which they are not repentant simply makes them complacent in their harmful condition, resulting in even more harm being done. Thus, it's not a matter of being unwilling to forgive, but that forgiveness is being ineffective until there is genuine repentance.

The late Pope was probably well intentioned. I certainly accept his apology for the sack of Constantinople. But to apologise for one sin does not absolve one of the responsibility to apologise for the rest. That flies in the face of the theology of penance for both the Roman and Orthodox Churches. A general apology simply will not do, because it leaves up the the air the question of exactly what the pope apologised for. Case in point: does the Pope's general confession for all sins mean that the Roman Church can commit future atrocities without having to apologise for them, because his apology has already covered it? (Remind anyone of the indulgences controversy? :smile:) Or does it mean that the Orthodox should forgive them for their sin of unilaterally altering the Ecumenical Creed, or for their inflated claims to authority (both of which the Roman Church is clearly unrepentant for)?

2) Some Orthodox leaders responded to Pope John Paul II's moves. The apology and his return of relics were viewed positively by some Orthodox leaders. For example Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople said:"This brotherly gesture by the church of Ancient Rome confirms that in the church of Christ there are no problems which are insurmountable, when love, justice and peace meet."
On October 21st, 1997, Patriarch Bartholomew received an honourary doctorate from Georgetown University, Washington. Everyone expected him to talk about Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations, and he did. But they did not hear what they expected:

We confirm, not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, is indeed different.

No doubt the Patriarch was sincere in acknowledging the late Pope's apology. But one should not make the mistake of believing that he thereby is going to simply forget about all the issues that divide Rome from them.

3) The growth of the eastern rite within the Catholic Church will help bring us together. One of the underlying causes of the 1054 schism, the fillioque, is now optional within the eastern rite of the Catholic Church and is no longer a point of contention. Eastern rites within the Catholic Church have also served to educate the rest of the Catholic world to the traditions and beliefs of the Orthodox.
Most Orthodox see Uniatism as one of the biggest barriers to unity. Most Uniate churches were subjugated to the Roman see by force.

And of course, this raises a big question: If the use of the filioque is indeed optional, then why did the Roman Church cause a split over it in the first place? 1000 years ago, it was "add the filioque to the Creed or be condemned". Now, it's "ok, you don't have to have it in your Creed so long as you obey the pope about everything else".

4) Secular pressure to adopt contemporary "issues of the day" coupled with the growth of democracy, will create a political climate in which the beliefs of Catholics and Orthodox will be better protected by uniting. This is already bringing Catholics and Protestants closer in the USA, and this trend will continue and increase globally as issues surrounding war, gay marriage, abortion, terrorism, cloning, bio-genetic testing, etc... continue to grow as central issues we both must address. Eventually this will bring a call for a joint Ecumenical Council, perhaps even including some Protestants, and the rest will be history!
The irony of the above paragraph is that it is not a viewpoint grounded in the tradition of the Church, but one formed under pressure from secular ideas. The above view is a betrayal of both Orthodox and Roman ecclesiology.

You say that "beliefs of Orthodox and Roman Catholics will be better protected by uniting". This is false. From an Orthodox perspective, uniting with a Roman Church that insists on papal supremacy and the filioque would might protect some of the more superficial Orthodox beliefs, but at the cost of destroying the very foundation on which they are built. To defend the truth in the secular world, the Church must remain faithful to the truth - if she starts to compromise on the truth for the sake of "unity", then she will undermine her foundation. Any unity which is not founded on a unity of truth is not a true unity - it's a compromise. One cannot compromise the truth a faith whose truth was defended with the blood of so many martyrs.

And this brings me to my next point: the Church has (and needs) only one weapon against the secular attacks that she faces - the truth. The Church will defend the truth as she always has, through martyrdom (red or white). She doesn't need to enter into false union with foreign bodies in order to defend this truth.

Also, on the topic of an Ecumenical Council: An Ecumenical Council is a council of the Church. The Church according to Roman dogma is the Roman Catholic Church, and according to Orthodox dogma is the Orthodox Church. Schismatics are, by definition, not in the Church, and thus aren't permitted to participate in an Ecumenical Council. There is no such thing as a "joint Ecumenical Council". The Lutherans weren't invited to Trent, because by that time they were already schismatics.

Again, I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the above are simply the facts. None of this means that Christian churches can't work together on contemporary moral and social issues - indeed, that's how the WCC started out (though degraded as the WCC came increasingly under the influence of the very forces that traditional Christianity has sought to fight against).

Challenges

Sometimes, the best way to proceed in initial negotiations is to find areas of agreement and move forward with those issues. But its also important to define areas where its going to be difficult to reach agreement in order to avoid getting bogged down in discussions. (The oft-quoted quagmire)

A) The most problematic area is going to be primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but it is not necessary to resolve this in order to work together. The Catholic Church would accept historic representation within an Ecumenical Council, and in order to facilitate this, Benedict XVI (or his successors) will declare the council's decisions binding on all Catholics. We also have extensive precedence for working together without agreeing on the role of the Bishop of Rome.
Given what you've said above about Ecumenical Councils, I'm not quite sure how to understand the above paragraph. Can you enlighten me?

[Jezz]

This is probably where Jezz is going to say I'm unable to support my position, but all I can say is that there is a movement going on from within Catholicism and it is a move towards the Orthodox.
I do not doubt that there is a movement towards Orthodoxy in Roman Catholicism. It's nice that you've started to make the journey - but I'm just telling you that, although you've come a couple of metres closer, there is a kilometre-wide chasm still to be crossed, and you've already expressed that you have no desire to cross it.

The issue of the filioque is not going to stop this movement from the Catholic perspective, and I'm surely not going to enhance this movement by quibbling for the filioque, its history, reasoning and/or authorship.
spiritmech raised an excellent point on this issue. If the Roman Catholic position is truly that the filioque is a minor issue (a "quibble", as you put it), then why on earth don't they just take it out already???!!! They know it's a big deal for the Orthodox, and they know that the Orthodox want them to take it out, and they know that Orthodox would consider it a giant step towards unity if they took it out. Given that they know all of this, why not just take it out??? If it really is not a big deal for the Roman Catholics, then take it out! At the moment, the Roman Catholic position is extremely absurd and contradictory:

1. We want unity with the Orthodox.
2. We know that the Orthodox would be far more amenable to unity if we reverted to the original creed.
3. We claim that it doesn't matter if one uses the original Creed or the modified creed.
4. But we're going to keep using the modified creed anyway.

This is irrational behaviour. I suspect the reason for this behaviour is that, subconsiously, Roman Catholics realise that the change is not quite so trivial as they are making it out to be. To claim that it is a trivial issue is "the wish fathering the thought".

About the eastern rite, if you think we have two different understandings of 'key' theological issues, then isn't it logical that we should grow the eastern rite which would undoubtably be a move towards your 'key' theological point of view?
For my mind, the Eastern Rite Catholic churches only raise more questions than answers - highlighting inconsistencies in the Roman Church's position.

Why is it all of a sudden acceptable, from the Roman POV, for churches to use the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople, and not the papacy's creed? Why is this the case now, and not in 1054?

Clearly, the reason cannot be doctrinal. If it was a doctrinal issue back in 1054, then it is equally so now, and the papacy is now compromising the Faith by not insisting on the filioque's inclusion.

The real reason for these inconsistencies is easy to see: In 1054, the papacy insisted on the filioque's inclusion as a way of trying to get the Eastern Churches to submit to the authority of the pope. In the 1700s, allowing the filioque paved the way for some Eastern Churches to submit themselves to the authority of the pope. And there we have the commonality...

You might think that is harsh... well, perhaps it is, but I don't mean it to be. I only mean to speak the truth. I'm not judging you or any Roman Catholic. If you are hungry, I will feed you, if you are thirsty, I will give you something to drink, if you are naked, I will clothe you, and I will pray for you. But I will not compromise on the Truth.

[George Blaisdell]

Quote: Originally posted by furay

Now, I'm pretty ignorant, but haven't the so-called "Eastern Rite" Catholics historically been more of a divisive issue than a unifying one for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches?
________________________________

Some people will use this as a wedge issue. For those people, I'm supposed to complain about confiscation of Eastern Catholic land and churches, Orthodox respond it was the communists who actually confiscated it and now we're leading their membership astray, we complain they have our properties now so they should give it back, they say we have their members, someone eventually sceams heretic, and its downhill from there.

There are numerous historical issues, but I don't think its wise to concentrate on the divisive issues when working out initial cooperation. What would it take for us to get to an Ecumenical Council, I think that should be the driving issue.

Beginnings are so important...

The beginnings of this issue were the 'crusade' that ended up attacking Christians in Constantinople, and the sack of that city, and the systematic looting of its wealth for some 80 years until there was no more loot to take back to Europe, and the 'planting' of Roman Churches so as to leave the 'real' Church, the Roman Church, in place, and then the abandonment of Constantinople to the Islamic armies, who are now yelling for our blood in the Middle East.

Now the purpose of the 'planted' Roman Churches in the Middle East was to give them 'true' Christianity, which the Crusaders affirmed as the Roman Church. They saw the rest of the Church as but stubborn and unrepentant branches who were forsaking the true authority that Rome was seeking to impose. This is the beginning of the uniate issue, and the lens that forms the matrix of understanding that planted [eg uniate] Churches have in the minds of the Orthodox.

And indeed, this has been the understanding of the Roman Church for a long time. Only recently has there been any movement at all toward reconciliation... In many ways, the orthodox are like Ananias when God told him to receive Saul - He knows Saul as a persecutor. And we do not have God telling us to submit ourselves to Rome, but instead have God telling us that Rome must submit Herself to the Church.

So the issues are pretty good, and need a lot of prayer. But the Church that we have kept unchanged from the first thousand years is the Church that should be held aloft, for this is the Church that we both can claim...

Are you ready for a Church of the first 7 councils only?? That used to be your Church, and it still is ours...

I hope you efforts toward reconciliation find the answers they need...

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

Just to be fair, didn't the Greeks in Constantinople before the Sack slaughter all the Latins who lived there when some guy became emperor? Just playing devil's advocate I guess.

[Hail Mary]

If I try to pull this kind of confession with my confessing Father, I will not receive forgiveness. Confession is specific, and describes actions and motives, and although there are some who just give the generic confession and do receive absolution, these are not ones who benefit from confession. Confession is supposed to be painful and humbling through shame for our thoughts, words and deeds. For me to just say "Forgive me for all the things I have done wrong, Lord..." is to make of confession a farce...

I doubt your confessing Father would rebuke anyone as harshly your above comments at the moment you enter the confessional either. If he does, perhaps its time for him to take a nice long vacation in Aruba Jamaica. Pope John Paul II's apology was just the beginning, there's 1000 years of history to deal with here and ancient institutions and beliefs, and things are just getting started. Why don't you hold off on the rebukes for awhile and see how things come along?

That is why such a blanket 'confession' on the part of the Pontif for the sake of reconciliation is counter-productive, because in the eyes of the Orthodox, who see actions, and not just words, as the true measure of confession and repentance, see this kind of confession as a cop-out... And that does not mean that they doubt the sincerity of the Pope, but that it does cast aspersions on his understanding of what it is that constitutes efficacious confession and repentance. Instead, it comes across to us as a negotiational ploy for re-unification UNDER the Pontif, when what is needed is for the Roman Church to voluntarily bring Herself utterly under the aegis of the Canonical Orthodox Church, and the first 7 councils, and confess her having strayed from those councils in doctrine and action against that Church, and to make an effort at turning away from those errors.

That is how it works. We have not changed and added new doctrines. And when a Church does indeed change and add new doctrines, and takes itself out of our Communion, then re-entry comes from repentance that follows real confession.

It is not a matter of negotiating between two opposing and somewhat equal 'positions', but is a matter of prodigality, and turning away from error, and return to the Church of the first thousand years. That Church still exists, and we pray for our Roman Brethren to return.

Yet you are right, because Rome IS indeed moving toward the east, and all she really needs to do is to return to the Church of the first thousand years of Christianity, and the Apostolic Church will be re-united with Rome again. And until She does so, how can She possibly re-join?

I refer the right honorable gentleman to my previous answer.

[Hail Mary]

I did see Pope Benedict's opening decree. But I was not that impressed. While no doubt well-intentioned, what he basically said was "I'm willing to work towards unity as long as we're not required to admit that we were wrong." But healing of schisms in the history of the Church has never, ever happened that way. In the Tradition of the Church, full schisms (as opposed to local schisms) were only ever healed when the offending party confesses and repents of their error. Schisms are not healed by ignoring the past offences.

I appreciate your comments, and I may be sorry for starting this thread because as I look back at the opening post it looks like something out of Baha'i or Unitarian Universalist literature. Yet, I have learned something, and that is what is important.

But as for your characterization (indeed your caricature-ization) of John Paul II's apology, I would ask you to apply the same judgement to anyone else who apologizes to you. When someone asks God for forgivenss for any sin of omission or comission, do you really rebuke them so harshly? Especially when this process has just begun.

And my assertion is that the great schism of 1054 will only end when one of two things happens:

1. The Orthodox admit that they have no right to disobey the pope to the pope.
2. The Pope admits that he has no right to exercise authority over other Churches.

This is what caused the schism in the first place, and the schism won't be healed until the issue that caused it has been resolved. You can talk about all the other stuff as much as you like - it's just window dressing. This is the fundamental issue, and it's not going to go away by wishful thinking.

An alternative to #2 (which is pure speculation because I'm not a canon lawyer)

2. The Pope recognizes the Orthodox do not accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

This isn't everything you want, and its not everything we want.


I vehemently disagree. Here is what the official Roman Catholic Catechism has to say about repentance:
...snip of CCC 1456

There's quite a difference between an individual's confession to a priest on a regular schedule, and attempting to inventory 1000 years of sins before an attempt can even be made to apologize. Once you step outside the bounds of an individual's confession to God, the same rules can not apply. (see challenge below)

Now, the above is more-or-less Orthodox (though the Orthodox recognise differences in degrees of sin, they don't have a hard-and-fast dividing line between "venial" and "mortal" sins as the Roman Catholics do - a distinction that was introduced by the scholastics). And, as I pointed out in the original thread from which this thread was spawned, this was an issue of contention during the Lutheran Reformation - with Lutherans holding (as ave_maria is now holding) that a thorough examination of the conscience and recounting of all sins discovered thereby was not necessary. The Roman Catholics at the time held their ground - reaffirming the position above. This is one issue that I think that the Roman Catholics were absolutely right on, and the Lutherans were a little bit off-kilter. Unless one actually makes an effort to enumerate all their individual sins and apologise for each one individually, then the confession will be of limited effectiveness.

You're not accurately depicting my position. I just don't think it would be helpful to try and enumerate each sin which has occurred over the last 1000 years. Apologies will continue, hopefully from both sides. (see challenge below)

Note that this insistence on enumerating all sins is not a matter of being unwilling to forgive. If someone wrongs me, then the right thing to do is to forgive them immediately. God certainly does that. It is wrong to bear a grudge and withold forgiveness as a form of revenge (as some Orthodox do).

Why then, do I insist that an enumeration of sins is necessary? For the same reason that the Church does - not for the benefit of the forgiver, but for the benefit of the penitent. God does not demand our repentance because He needs it - He demands our repentance because remaining unrepentant is spiritually damaging to a person. Absolving a person (or a church) of sins for which they are not repentant simply makes them complacent in their harmful condition, resulting in even more harm being done. Thus, it's not a matter of being unwilling to forgive, but that forgiveness is being ineffective until there is genuine repentance.

Please demonstrate an apology for me. I want you to enumerate ALL of the sins committed against Romanian Catholics who were imprisoned and property confiscated. You should include everyone from the year 1054 to present, and apply your own standards to the apology.

The late Pope was probably well intentioned. I certainly accept his apology for the sack of Constantinople. But to apologise for one sin does not absolve one of the responsibility to apologise for the rest. That flies in the face of the theology of penance for both the Roman and Orthodox Churches. A general apology simply will not do, because it leaves up the the air the question of exactly what the pope apologised for. Case in point: does the Pope's general confession for all sins mean that the Roman Church can commit future atrocities without having to apologise for them, because his apology has already covered it? (Remind anyone of the indulgences controversy? :smile:) Or does it mean that the Orthodox should forgive them for their sin of unilaterally altering the Ecumenical Creed, or for their inflated claims to authority (both of which the Roman Church is clearly unrepentant for)?

The sack of Constantinople was 800 years ago, and responsibility for the sack is questionable at best. The British burned Washington D.C. to the ground 200 years ago, and somehow we've managed to overcome that.

Again, I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the above are simply the facts. None of this means that Christian churches can't work together on contemporary moral and social issues - indeed, that's how the WCC started out (though degraded as the WCC came increasingly under the influence of the very forces that traditional Christianity has sought to fight against).

A technique used in negotiations between opposing groups is to identify people within the both groups with the desire to work together. They are the only people with a chance to make any progress.

I accept your statement that you don't really mean to be a wet blanket, and sorry for snipping the rest of your points, but this is a process that will leave intransigent people behind. Not everyone is interested in getting bogged down with the details of the 13th century sack of Constantinople (especially lay Christians in Istanbul).

[tizzidale]

What I'm interested in is true unity in the Faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Without this, there is no unity. Forget rites, practices, etc. What is the overriding issue is the Papal claims. I've come to realize that the primacy exercised by the Pope in first 1000 years was real, but as Christ told his disciples:

But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Peter, as the Fathers of the Church express, was the greatest by reason of his virtue. Rome was given primacy for many reasons, not the least of which was it was the place of Peter and Paul's deaths and burials. But like Peter, Rome was given primacy because of its virtue. There's no need to pretend that the Primacy of Rome was not a real thing, for it was. But let us not pretend that Rome has not attempted to usurp 'authority over' the other Bishops of the Church.

rusty

[Constantine]

Is it just me or when the Roman Catholic give an offer to help heal the schism, the EO's just move the goal posts?

There were wrongs committed by both sides. So until the East stops acting like they're perfect and when they stop insisting that the only way to come together is for Rome to grovel at their feet....then no unity will be found.

Rome has offered multiple olive branches to serve atleast as a starting point. I think its time the Orthodox respond with something more than "not good enough".

[Hail Mary]

Beginnings are so important...

The beginnings of this issue were the 'crusade' that ended up attacking Christians in Constantinople, and the sack of that city, and the systematic looting of its wealth for some 80 years until there was no more loot to take back to Europe, and the 'planting' of Roman Churches so as to leave the 'real' Church, the Roman Church, in place, and then the abandonment of Constantinople to the Islamic armies, who are now yelling for our blood in the Middle East.

Now the purpose of the 'planted' Roman Churches in the Middle East was to give them 'true' Christianity, which the Crusaders affirmed as the Roman Church. They saw the rest of the Church as but stubborn and unrepentant branches who were forsaking the true authority that Rome was seeking to impose. This is the beginning of the uniate issue, and the lens that forms the matrix of understanding that planted [eg uniate] Churches have in the minds of the Orthodox.

I waited a few days before responding to this post, breath-in, breath-out... sigh...

To summarize, the 'crusaders' are responsible for the post-communism era growth of Eastern Catholics? And now, amongst our other sins, the fall of Constantinople to Islamic armies (800 years ago), is our responsibility? And now Muslims are yelling for your blood because of something else we did?

As an exercise in critical thinking, why don't you post a response to yourself and try to take the perspective of a Catholic in responding. (Try to be as propagandistic as possible in the Catholic response too)

[tizzidale]

Is it just me or when the Roman Catholic give an offer to help heal the schism, the EO's just move the goal posts?

There were wrongs committed by both sides. So until the East stops acting like they're perfect and when they stop insisting that the only way to come together is for Rome to grovel at their feet....then no unity will be found.

Rome has offered multiple olive branches to serve atleast as a starting point. I think its time the Orthodox respond with something more than "not good enough".

There has been a 'starting point' - as the committee for dialoque has been scheduled to restart after several years of hiatus. On topic will be the Papal claims. What better way to start than at the root of the problem. Perhaps we should all pray that true progress is made.

rusty

[Jezz]

I appreciate your comments, and I may be sorry for starting this thread because as I look back at the opening post it looks like something out of Baha'i or Unitarian Universalist literature. Yet, I have learned something, and that is what is important.
:smile: Glad to see you don't think it is a total waste of time. :thumb:

But as for your characterization (indeed your caricature-ization) of John Paul II's apology,
Did you really mean PJPII's apology? It's just that in the context of where this comment was placed, I was talking about the new Pope Benedict.

I would ask you to apply the same judgement to anyone else who apologizes to you. When someone asks God for forgivenss for any sin of omission or comission, do you really rebuke them so harshly? Especially when this process has just begun.
This process has just begun? There have been attempts at this for nearly 1000 years!

As for rebuking harshly: Suppose someone burns down your house and then months later apologises for damaging your couch, would you consider that an adequate apology? Would you accept it? Or would you laugh, and say: if you hadn't burned down my house, then my couch would not have been damaged in the first place!

It's not a matter of rebuke. I don't care about the house or the couch - God will take care of that stuff. But I do care about the person making the apology. And what does it say about the spiritual state of the person who apologises for the minor crime while ignoring the major crime of which it is a symptom?

An alternative to #2 (which is pure speculation because I'm not a canon lawyer)

2. The Pope recognizes the Orthodox do not accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

This isn't everything you want, and its not everything we want.
In other words, it's a compromise of the faith. It is not a unity of the faith.

This is precisely the problem with the approaching Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations in the way that you are suggesting. Both sides of the argument believe themselves to be the true faith. You're suggesting that they compromise the truth in order to reach some sort of "unity". But, as I have stated elsewhere, unity that does is not based on truth is not a true unity. You're asking that both sides "sell out" their faith in order to pretend that there is unity, when in truth no unity exists. That is not the way that the Church works, and it never has. The truth is the most important thing.

There's quite a difference between an individual's confession to a priest on a regular schedule, and attempting to inventory 1000 years of sins before an attempt can even be made to apologize. Once you step outside the bounds of an individual's confession to God, the same rules can not apply. (see challenge below)
Why are they different? Are you claiming that one man cannot adequately speak for the whole Church? :smile:

You're not accurately depicting my position. I just don't think it would be helpful to try and enumerate each sin which has occurred over the last 1000 years. Apologies will continue, hopefully from both sides. (see challenge below)
I wasn't trying to depict your position - I was trying to critique it. I know what your position is - you explained it quite clearly. I was trying to explain why I disagree with it, and why Catholic theology (both Roman and Orthodox) disagrees with it too. No matter what you might think, the lifelong experience of the Church Catholic is that enumerating all sins is helpful.

Here is an example to show why vague "I apologise for everything" apologies are unhelpful:

Pope: We apologise for all wrongs.
Orthodox: Great! So you apologise for unilaterally altering the Creed and for claiming supremacy over the whole Church?
Pope: Oh no, of course not.
Orthodox: But I thought you apologised for all wrongs?
Pope: I did. But that wasn't wrong.

The phrase "all wrongs" is equivocal and meaningless on its own, unless both sides of the argument understand and agree on what "all wrongs" is.

Please demonstrate an apology for me. I want you to enumerate ALL of the sins committed against Romanian Catholics who were imprisoned and property confiscated. You should include everyone from the year 1054 to present, and apply your own standards to the apology.
Given that Romania didn't exist until the 19th century, I'm not quite sure how to answer your request. :smile: Besides, this is the first I've heard of such an accusation. Care to point me in the area of some resources where I could find out more about it?

If, IMHO, an apology is necessary, I certainly agree that the relevant Romanian bishops should make an apology. But this is where the RCC is different from the Orthodox , in that there is no single person other than Christ who is responsible for all Orthodox people. The pope, on the other hand, claims universal responsibility.

The sack of Constantinople was 800 years ago, and responsibility for the sack is questionable at best.
I happen to agree that it is likely the pope of the day, as a single person, wasn't directly responsible for the sack.

The problem that caused the sack was a systemic one. It was a faliure of the Roman Church system as a whole - a result of its spiritual sickness, which entered through the wound of schism. It was not one single immanent cause, but several interrelating ones - all of these causes being symptoms of the fundamental issues (papacy and filioque).

I'm far more interested in this big picture than I am with the sack.

The British burned Washington D.C. to the ground 200 years ago, and somehow we've managed to overcome that.
The British and US may be friendly, but they are not united into one nation.

I think your analogy is a good one, actually, and I think it will help to prove my point. The best that you can hope for with the approach that you are taking is that the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox will be on friendly terms, working together, generally not trying to kill each other - like the British and the US. But if both sides take their mission seriously, then that's not good enough. The end goal (for both sides) should not be to merely have two churches on friendly terms with each other, but all of them united into one Church.

A technique used in negotiations between opposing groups is to identify people within the both groups with the desire to work together. They are the only people with a chance to make any progress.
I know what you're trying to do. What I am trying to do is identify the fact that those people who claim to want to work together will, in fact, still be unmoved on the most important points. The "progress" that you are talking about is not progress towards healing the schism, but progress towards undoing the damage done since them. As I have already said, this is treating symptoms while ignoring the cause.

Let me put it this way:
1. Do you not deny that the fundamental issue that divides the Roman and the Orthodox Churches is the papacy?
2. Do you not deny that you, despite your lip-service to working towards unity, you have absolutely no intention of budging on this most fundamental issue?
3. Does it not follow from the above that any "progress" made towards full doctrinal unity and restoration of communion is doomed to failure from the outset?

I accept your statement that you don't really mean to be a wet blanket, and sorry for snipping the rest of your points, but this is a process that will leave intransigent people behind. Not everyone is interested in getting bogged down with the details of the 13th century sack of Constantinople (especially lay Christians in Istanbul).
I'm not being intransigent. Maybe there are some who are, but not me - quite the opposite. I'm jumping way ahead of you. I'm already assuming that we're at the stage where the US and the British now are. But they are not united, and I'm looking even further ahead to true, ecclesiastical unity.

And as I have said, true ecclesiastical unity cannot come until one side or the other admits that they were wrong on the issue of papal supremacy. Once that happens, everything else will fall into place rather quickly. But until it does, the process will go no further. This is not me being intransigent - it is me acknowledging facts. One cannot be left behind if there is no possibility of forward progress. :smile:

This has nothing to do with holding grudges for wrongs long since passed. It's more about pointing out that some of the wrongs aren't past, but are ongoing. Specifically, papal supremacy and the filioque (and any doctrinal innovations brought afterwards). And until those wrongs are righted, then there will be no unity. I can forgive all I want, but the wrongs will sill remain until there is a "change of mind" (metanoia = repentance).

[Jezz]

Is it just me or when the Roman Catholic give an offer to help heal the schism, the EO's just move the goal posts?
No, it's just you. :smile:

The Orthodox have had the "goalposts" in the same position since the time of the schism, and even earlier - submission to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. That is where the goalposts are today. They haven't moved at all.

There were wrongs committed by both sides.
Well, that may be... but the most important wrongs are the doctrinal ones. That is what I'm trying to point out. Issues like the sack of Constantinople are sidebars. The biggest barriers to unity are the ones that caused the schism in the first place, and neither church has shown willingness to budge on these issues.

So until the East stops acting like they're perfect and when they stop insisting that the only way to come together is for Rome to grovel at their feet....then no unity will be found.
Ironic. Rome insists that the only way to come together is for the Orthodox to accept the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. In other words, "to grovel at the pope's feet".

Both Churches are insisting that the other grovel at their feet as a condition for unity. So let's not try and paint either side as the bad guys for simply making this claim, as that would be hypocritical.

Rome has offered multiple olive branches to serve atleast as a starting point. I think its time the Orthodox respond with something more than "not good enough".
The Orthodox will respond with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And the truth is that the pope's apology is not enough for unity. The two biggest obstacles to unity are still in place, and they have not been dealt with. This is a simple fact - do you deny it?

[HyperHobbes]

Rome's doctrine is primacy. They can't give it up without destroying the whole basis for their denomination. (Yes, I see both the RCC and the "Orthodox" of whatever stripe as denominations.)

Related to the fundamental problem of primacy is the myth of Apostolic Succession. There's no such thing. The only possible form of Apostolic Succession that could exist is a historical connection to the first leaders and Apostles of the Church. The passing of that office to other leaders is a grave error and myth. All old denominations try this slight of hand so as to gain functional control over other believers. I don't foresee this rapprochement succeeding as I cannot see any of the ancient denominations bowing to kiss the hand of another and relinquishing power.

HHobbes

[tizzidale]

I cannot see any of the ancient denominations bowing to kiss the hand of another

This is exactly what happened when, several decades ago, the anathemas against one another were lifted by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The goal should not be the 'relinquishing of power' - for power and authority rests in God alone and only to Whom He wills to give it. The goal should be a unity in Faith - and there is so much to built upon, greatly illustrated by this post.

There is the understanding of ecclesiology - including the idea of Primacy. Even the Primacy of Rome. What this entails is where the 'rub' is.

There is a mutual understanding of the communion of the saints; the prayers for the departed; the intercession of the saints; etc.

There is the mutual love and veneration of the Holy Mother of God - Mary.

There is a great love for orthodox Christian beliefs and the upholding of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There are nuanced differences - especially concerning the Filioque, but let's not forget what is commonly held.

There is a shared monastic life.

There is a shared understanding of the Eucharist - differences of practice notwithstanding.

The Sacraments of the Church are shared. Even if some Orthodox claim that we don't limit ourselves to seven, I would suppose that Catholics would say the same - that all of life is a sacrament, etc. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that we mutually hold to the seven sacraments.

The love of art and the expression of religion through music, painting, sculpture, etc. This is, essentially, a great understanding of the Incarnation.

There is more, and more. Let's not forget what we do hold in unity.

rusty

[Jezz]

There is more, and more. Let's not forget what we do hold in unity.
While I might quibble with some of the details of what you are saying, I must agree with this.

Christ argued with the Pharisees the most, not because His theological position was much different to theirs, but because theirs was the closest position to His within the Judaism of His day. Christ had far more in common with the Pharisees than with the Sadducees.

I think the Roman-Orthodox arguments are so pronounced for precisely this reason. With a group such as, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is barely possible (let alone fruitful) to enter into mutual dialog because the differences are numerous and non-trivial. It is precisely the commonality and shared history between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy that makes dialogue worthwhile in the first place.

I guess my approach in this issue is that, ok - yes, we acknowledge there is a large degree of commonality. I grant that. But when it comes to dialogue I see little point in dwelling on those issues on which we already agree. Unity is not achieved by dealing with issues on which we agree - it's achieved only by dealing with issues on which we disagree, and trying to reach an agreement.

[Hail Mary]

The only possible form of Apostolic Succession that could exist is a historical connection to the first leaders and Apostles of the Church. The passing of that office to other leaders is a grave error and myth. All old denominations try this slight of hand so as to gain functional control over other believers. I don't foresee this rapprochement succeeding as I cannot see any of the ancient denominations bowing to kiss the hand of another and relinquishing power.

Hmmm, without apostolic succession the entire legitimacy and authorship of the New Testament is based on 'grave error and myth.'

[Hail Mary]

As for rebuking harshly: Suppose someone burns down your house and then months later apologises for damaging your couch, would you consider that an adequate apology? Would you accept it? Or would you laugh, and say: if you hadn't burned down my house, then my couch would not have been damaged in the first place!

It's not a matter of rebuke. I don't care about the house or the couch - God will take care of that stuff. But I do care about the person making the apology. And what does it say about the spiritual state of the person who apologises for the minor crime while ignoring the major crime of which it is a symptom?

A better analogy would be two neighbors are angry at each other and resort to arson. One neighbor recognizes that wrongs were done and apologizes for all wrongs committed. The other neighbor wants a separate apology for his couch, table, each chair, the carpet, the flooring, floorboard #1, floorboard #2, etc... and refuses to recognize the other's apology.

In other words, it's a compromise of the faith. It is not a unity of the faith.

This is precisely the problem with the approaching Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations in the way that you are suggesting. Both sides of the argument believe themselves to be the true faith. You're suggesting that they compromise the truth in order to reach some sort of "unity". But, as I have stated elsewhere, unity that does is not based on truth is not a true unity. You're asking that both sides "sell out" their faith in order to pretend that there is unity, when in truth no unity exists. That is not the way that the Church works, and it never has. The truth is the most important thing.


I would say its a compromise of the faithful, not of the faith. Its actually not much of a compromise either. It is the reality of the situation.

Why are they different? Are you claiming that one man cannot adequately speak for the whole Church? :smile:

The difference is that individuals should keep an inventory of their sins, and ask forgiveness for these. Its impossible to inventory the sins of individuals and organizations dating back 1000 years or more.

Pope: We apologise for all wrongs.
Orthodox: Great! So you apologise for unilaterally altering the Creed and for claiming supremacy over the whole Church?
Pope: Oh no, of course not.
Orthodox: But I thought you apologised for all wrongs?
Pope: I did. But that wasn't wrong.

Well, One flaw in this dialogue is that the Orthodox don't really speak with one voice. Some leaders have been quite accepting of the Pope's apology, while others are not. But, another problem with continuing this type of dialogue is expressed below:

Pope: We apologise for all wrongs.
Orthodox: Great! So you apologise for X1?
Pope: We recognize that you see this as a problem, and we are working to resolve this.
Orthodox: Well, what about X2.
Pope: We recognize that you see X2 as a problem, and we are working to resolve this.
.....
Orthodox: Well, what about XN.
Pope: We recognize that you see XN as a problem, and we are working to resolve this.

The phrase "all wrongs" is equivocal and meaningless on its own, unless both sides of the argument understand and agree on what "all wrongs" is.

"ALL wrongs" meaning that anything you can come up with, we apologize, even if we didn't do it.

Given that Romania didn't exist until the 19th century, I'm not quite sure how to answer your request. :smile: Besides, this is the first I've heard of such an accusation. Care to point me in the area of some resources where I could find out more about it?

If, IMHO, an apology is necessary, I certainly agree that the relevant Romanian bishops should make an apology. But this is where the RCC is different from the Orthodox , in that there is no single person other than Christ who is responsible for all Orthodox people. The pope, on the other hand, claims universal responsibility.[/QOUTE]

You avoided the challenge, which is what I expected.

[QUOTE]The British and US may be friendly, but they are not united into one nation.

I think your analogy is a good one, actually, and I think it will help to prove my point. The best that you can hope for with the approach that you are taking is that the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox will be on friendly terms, working together, generally not trying to kill each other - like the British and the US. But if both sides take their mission seriously, then that's not good enough. The end goal (for both sides) should not be to merely have two churches on friendly terms with each other, but all of them united into one Church.

There is no need for the US and British to become one nation. In fact, the notion of nationality is changing so dramatically (EU, NAFTA, etc...) that nationality will become less important than membership in larger and more global categories. There is less difference between the USA and the UK now than there was between South Carolina and New York 300 years ago. It is the progression of humanity, our shared ideals, and the willingness of both sides to forgive and forget which has brought us closer together.

Let me put it this way:
1. Do you not deny that the fundamental issue that divides the Roman and the Orthodox Churches is the papacy?
2. Do you not deny that you, despite your lip-service to working towards unity, you have absolutely no intention of budging on this most fundamental issue?
3. Does it not follow from the above that any "progress" made towards full doctrinal unity and restoration of communion is doomed to failure from the outset?

Hmmm, how about this:
1. Do you deny that on most fundamental issues within Christianity there is more agreement than dispute between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches?
2. Do you deny that focusing on the differences instead of the agreements, perpetuates the differences.
3. Does it not follow that focusing on differences "dooms" further possibilities for further agreements?


I'm not being intransigent. Maybe there are some who are, but not me - quite the opposite. I'm jumping way ahead of you. I'm already assuming that we're at the stage where the US and the British now are. But they are not united, and I'm looking even further ahead to true, ecclesiastical unity.

And as I have said, true ecclesiastical unity cannot come until one side or the other admits that they were wrong on the issue of papal supremacy. Once that happens, everything else will fall into place rather quickly. But until it does, the process will go no further. This is not me being intransigent - it is me acknowledging facts. One cannot be left behind if there is no possibility of forward progress. :smile:

This has nothing to do with holding grudges for wrongs long since passed. It's more about pointing out that some of the wrongs aren't past, but are ongoing. Specifically, papal supremacy and the filioque (and any doctrinal innovations brought afterwards). And until those wrongs are righted, then there will be no unity. I can forgive all I want, but the wrongs will sill remain until there is a "change of mind" (metanoia = repentance).

I don't think we're going to agree on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, there is a lot of room for agreement on the filioque. It just seems that should open doors for further agreements rather than shutting them.

[George Blaisdell]

I doubt your confessing Father would rebuke anyone as harshly your above comments at the moment you enter the confessional either. If he does, perhaps its time for him to take a nice long vacation in Aruba Jamaica. Pope John Paul II's apology was just the beginning, there's 1000 years of history to deal with here and ancient institutions and beliefs, and things are just getting started. Why don't you hold off on the rebukes for awhile and see how things come along?


Well, most all of the Orthodox with whom I correspond and discuss this matter to a man said of the Pope's 'confession' that it was indeed a good beginning, but was a bare start on what was needed. And nothing more came forth. And he most certainly COULD have been very specific on the pivotal issues, which were the Filioque and the campaign of theological warfare systematically waged against the Eastern Orthodox from the time of the split to the very recent present. He could have said "We were wrong to have siezed upon the Filioque and tried to cram it down the throat of the rest of the Church outside of a proper Ecumenical council's approval." He could have said that the See of Peter is NOT the foundation of the Church, and indeed is NOT the Church, and that Rome was wrong to take unto herself what was not hers to take, the Church, and that it is the Communion of the Churches that is the Church, of which the See of Peter had at one time had in Her possession the primacy of honor...

But instead, he just made vague general 'confessions' of 'any sins the son's of Rome "might have" committed..."

Now perhaps I am being a little harsh - And perhaps the 'confession' he made is all that he COULD have made - But if that is the case, then the 'confession' does indeed become a negotional 'opening move', rather than a genuine confession - With the then apparently ostensive purpose of getting the Orthodox to give an equally vague 'confession' in response, so that the "two sides" can then begin the long process of "negotiating" their way toward some reconciliation in the middle of each side's "wrongs"...

And if THAT was the purpose, then you can be assured that the Orthodox will have no part of it... We have kept the faith, and Rome has strayed from it... And in order for Rome to return from her prodigality, She must do so by means of confessing her error, and returning in repentance from her error...

And if the Orthodox are wrong, they must do the same.

But not so as to negotiate toward some 'middle ground' of compromise...

We do not compromise the Truth...

If Rome is not willing to return to the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as the basis for the reunification of the Church, then there will be no reunification.

That is the bottom line...

Now the interesting paradox comes in with the following scenario: IF Roma does indeed return to the first 7 ecumenical councils, and does indeed confess to and repent from Her bestrayal from them, then the Orthodox would be compelled to return Rome to the Primacy of Honor She once had, so long ago... And She would be the leader of the now re-unified Church. She simply would NOT be it's "commander"...

Please forgive me for sounding so harsh - But the Truth requires candor, and smooshing one's way 'foreward' at the expence of frankness will only lead to more division, and there is enough of that already...

And the East has been bitten so many times by Rome that anything short of what I have outlined will simply not be believed...

And indeed I do appreciate your efforts toward peacemaking...

Arsenios

[Jezz]

A better analogy would be two neighbors are angry at each other and resort to arson. One neighbor recognizes that wrongs were done and apologizes for all wrongs committed. The other neighbor wants a separate apology for his couch, table, each chair, the carpet, the flooring, floorboard #1, floorboard #2, etc... and refuses to recognize the other's apology.
But Ave, that's not a correct analogy from our POV. Remember, I'm trying to explain to you the Orthodox POV. If you really want to overcome the issues that separate us, then it is essential that you first understand our POV. And for you to do that, then you have to you have to let me use my analogy in my way - not try to correct it for me.

As I have already explained, from our POV, the sack of Constantinople was a consequence of an earlier cause (that cause being the papal supremacy claims and the filioque). If the papacy had not caused the rupture, the sack of Constantinople would not have happened.

In the same way, in the analogy my couch burning down was a consequence of my neighbour setting fire to my house. If the neighbour had not set fire to my house, then my couch would not have burned.

So here are the analogous elements:

couch burning <-> sack of Constantinople
setting fire to my house <-> papal supremacy claims

The pope has apologised for the couch burning (the sack). But that wasn't the real, fundamental issue. The fundamental issue was was the lighting of the house. Should I accept my neighbour's "blanket apology" as including an apology for the wrong in setting fire to my house, when it is quite clear from my neighbour's other actions and statements that they aren't actually sorry for setting fire to my house?

I would say its a compromise of the faithful, not of the faith.
I would ask you to please explain how a compromise on Ecclesiology is not a compromise of the faith.

Its actually not much of a compromise either. It is the reality of the situation.
Well, I completely agree that that is the reality of the situation. What I'm trying to impress upon you is that there can be no true unity under such conditions. Again, this is not being ungrateful for the apology received thus far - it is simply acknowledging that that is the reality of the situation.

The difference is that individuals should keep an inventory of their sins, and ask forgiveness for these. Its impossible to inventory the sins of individuals and organizations dating back 1000 years or more.
Individuals will forget sins too. They rarely keep an inventory because at the time they are sinning they aren't really stopping to tally the fact that it is a sin... But it doesn't mean that an attempt should not be made.

Well, One flaw in this dialogue is that the Orthodox don't really speak with one voice. Some leaders have been quite accepting of the Pope's apology, while others are not.
I think you will find that most are quite accepting of anything that the pope actually has apologised for. I certainly accept his apology for the sack of Constantinople, and I think most Orthodox leaders would.

But the problem is that there is confusion over what it is exactly that the pope has apologised for. He says he has apologised for "all wrongs", but it is clear that he is not sorry for all wrongs. That is why an inspecific apology is unhelpful. As an extreme example to demonstrate my point: suppose that the pope believed that his church hadn't committed any wrong against the Orthodox. His blanket apology would be equally applicable, and yet in reality apologise for nothing.

But, another problem with continuing this type of dialogue is expressed below:

Pope: We apologise for all wrongs.
Orthodox: Great! So you apologise for X1?
Pope: We recognize that you see this as a problem, and we are working to resolve this.
Orthodox: Well, what about X2.
Pope: We recognize that you see X2 as a problem, and we are working to resolve this.
.....
Orthodox: Well, what about XN.
Pope: We recognize that you see XN as a problem, and we are working to resolve this.

"ALL wrongs" meaning that anything you can come up with, we apologize, even if we didn't do it.
Claiming that you are apologising while secretly believing that you did nothing wrong is not a real apology. That is my point. The above mock dialogue merely serves to highlight the problem with a blanket apology - it leaves wide open the question as to what exactly has been apologised for!

Your advocacy of the "blanket apology" approach sounds awfully like a plenary indulgence. What happens if the Vatican drops a nuclear bomb on Moscow tomorrow? Will they say: "What are you complaining about? We already apologised for all wrongs committed!" :wink:

Given that Romania didn't exist until the 19th century, I'm not quite sure how to answer your request. :smile: Besides, this is the first I've heard of such an accusation. Care to point me in the area of some resources where I could find out more about it?

If, IMHO, an apology is necessary, I certainly agree that the relevant Romanian bishops should make an apology. But this is where the RCC is different from the Orthodox , in that there is no single person other than Christ who is responsible for all Orthodox people. The pope, on the other hand, claims universal responsibility.

You avoided the challenge, which is what I expected.
That is a lie. I did not avoid the challenge. I expressed that I was not sufficiently familiar with the situation in order to respond at that time. I then asked you to help me remedy that situation by pointing me in the direction of some resources where I could find out more about it - so that I could respond in an informed manner.

So given that you didn't help me become more informed, I went out and tried to find out about what I think is the problem that you are referring to for myself. So far as I can tell, you are talking about the fact that the Romanian government confiscated some Uniate church properties and gave them to the Romanian Orthodox Church, which happened in about 1950. The Romanian Church is now refusing to give them back.

So, as for your challenge, "apologise for all atrocities committed since 1054", well I think that we can rule out the first 900 years of that as being uneventful (unless there is something that I am not aware of). As for whether or not the Romanian Church needs to apologise for the last 50 years... well, that's a tricky one. Y'see, my intial reaction would be to say yes... but then, I am also aware that what the Romanian Government has done is in reality no different to what the great kings of Judah did to expell heresy from their land, nor is it any different to what Saint Theodosius did to the heretics of his day in his lands. And he is a man whom both of our Churches venerate as a Saint for what He did for the Catholic Faith. There must be something more going on here which I do not understand. But suffice it to say for now, if you say that the Romanian government has done something wrong here, then Saint Theodosius is guilty of exactly the same thing, as are all the great kings of Judah (not to mention the God-inspired writers who praised the actions of the reforming kings). That would be as much a theological problem for the Roman Catholic Church as it would be for the Orthodox Church.

The ramifications of this mode of thinking is something I have not really worked out properly. As I noted, my initial impulse is to think that St Theodosius did the wrong thing. And yet, I am forced to deal with the fact (as are you) that the Church made him a saint for what he did. If I condemn his actions, I condemn the Church. If I don't condemn his actions, or King Josaiah's actions, or King Hezekaiah's actions - then how can I condemn the more-or-less identical actions of the Romanian government?

Anyway, that's about the extent of the depth that I wish to treat this issue in this thread. It's too much of a sidetrack to pursue more in-depth.

There is no need for the US and British to become one nation. In fact, the notion of nationality is changing so dramatically (EU, NAFTA, etc...) that nationality will become less important than membership in larger and more global categories. There is less difference between the USA and the UK now than there was between South Carolina and New York 300 years ago. It is the progression of humanity, our shared ideals, and the willingness of both sides to forgive and forget which has brought us closer together.
All nice and mostly true... but serves only to underscore the point I was trying to make - that your analogy to the US and the British is inapplicable to Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations. The reason for this is in your opening sentence "There is no need for the US and British to become one nation." This is true. But (from an Orthodox POV at least) there is a need for the Roman and Orthodox Churches to become one Church (or rather, as the Orthodox see it, the faithful of the Roman church need to be joined to the Orthodox Church).

Hmmm, how about this:
Hmmm, how about you answer my questions instead of ignoring them and asking your own? :teeth:

1. Do you deny that on most fundamental issues within Christianity there is more agreement than dispute between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches?
No.

2. Do you deny that focusing on the differences instead of the agreements, perpetuates the differences.
Yes, I deny this.

Focussing on the differences is not what perpetuates the differences! That's ludicrous! Allow me to demonstrate the absurdity by posing you the following question: If we stopped focussing on the differences, would the differences magically disappear? Of course not. Focussing on the differences is not what perpetuates their existence!

The only thing that perpetuates the differences is the perpetual failure to reconcile them. And the only way to reconcile this particular difference is for one or both sides to admit that they are wrong. Again, this is not about me being unwilling to accept the pope's apology - it's just calling a spade a spade.

Unfortunately, the "head in the sand" approach (where you try and make the differences go away by ignoring them ) simply isn't going to work.

3. Does it not follow that focusing on differences "dooms" further possibilities for further agreements?
No. I agree with tons of stuff in Roman Catholicism. Let us skip all of that stuff on which we know that we agree - because all the while that we talk about that and ignore the differences is time wasted that could be spent on trying to reconcile the differences and achieve real unity.

Now that I've answered your questions, would you care to answer mine? Here they are again for your benefit:

1. Do you not deny that the fundamental issue that divides the Roman and the Orthodox Churches is the papacy?
2. Do you not deny that you, despite your lip-service to working towards unity, you have absolutely no intention of budging on this most fundamental issue?
3. Does it not follow from the above that any "progress" made towards full doctrinal unity and restoration of communion is doomed to failure from the outset?

I don't think we're going to agree on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Then you agree that there will be no unity. Which is nothing more than what I have been saying from the start - ie, that despite

And again, I must stress that the Orthodox never had a problem with papal primacy (remember, "prime" is from the Latin word for "first") - what they objected to was papal supremacy. It is important when you are discussing such issues that you are precise with your terminology, otherwise you will create more confusion. The only way to unity is by being careful with the Truth, and that means being careful with the way that you use terminology. This is the responsibility of all of us - not just those in the "high up" places.

However, there is a lot of room for agreement on the filioque.
There is some, that is true, but that would be a discussion for another thread. You do need to remember, though, that this issue cannot be separated from the papal issue. In more than one way, the filioque represents the elevation of the power of the papacy above that of the Holy Spirit.

It just seems that should open doors for further agreements rather than shutting them.
"It just seems" is a sign of wishful thinking rather than well thought-out argument. What "further agreements" will be opened up? There is plenty to agree on already without reaching agreement on the filioque. None of this brings us closer to an agreement on the filioque.

In summary: In the overall context of Roman-Orthodox relations, the sack of Constantinople, while tragic, is a mere side-issue. The Roman Catholics have apologised, and that's fine and good - apology accepted. The thing is, this was not, and never has been, the main thing that separated our two communions. The main thing separating the two communions is, and always has been, the issues of papal supremacy and the filioque. It is a simple fact (one which despite all your comments in this thread, you have not once denied) that if you crack these two issues the unity will almost certainly follow. Even more certain is that until these two issues are cracked, there will never be unity.

Again, I need to impress on you that the above has nothing to do with reticence or being unforgiving. It is nothing other than a simple and honest appraisal of the facts of the situation. These are the two main barriers to unity. We will not achieve unity by continuing to behave as if these barriers didn't exist.

[Adam]

And again, I must stress that the Orthodox never had a problem with papal primacy (remember, "prime" is from the Latin word for "first") - what they objected to was papal supremacy. It is important when you are discussing such issues that you are precise with your terminology, otherwise you will create more confusion. The only way to unity is by being careful with the Truth, and that means being careful with the way that you use terminology. This is the responsibility of all of us - not just those in the "high up" places.
Jezz is quite correct about this fundamental point that everyone else seems to get wrong. Roman Catholics theologians I read back in the "good old days" of the liberal 1970's understood this quite well. They realized there is nothing necessarily true in the papal supremacy position. Jezz from the Orthodox side recognizes there is nothing necessarily true in anyone in Orthodoxy denying papal primacy.
Nevertheless, the differences are so great that only some radical rethinking will get us anywhere. The Roman Catholics have twenty-one general councils they recognize, and the Orthodox insist on dropping back to only the first seven. Well, given that the Orthodox disregard fourteen ecumenical councils and RCs do not honor any council unless it has the approbation of the Pope, we can say that neither side is altogether sold on general councils as such. (And keep in mind that one of the later RC councils was attended and agreed upon by Eastern representatives, Ferrara-Florence of the 1430's. The East soon repudiated that, just as the Pope had rejected much of the preceding Council of Constance, 1414-18.)
So my simple proposal is for the Roman Catholics to give up their additional fourteen councils and for the Orthodox to give up their seven. Of course I'm asking the RCs to give up those first seven as well, but that shouldn't be so painful, since their counterparts must give them up.
The principle to return to is that Jesus promised to give us the Spirit of Truth in John 16:13. The institutional church(es) obsess(es) about infallibility in general council pronouncements, but history has to be quite forced to narrow down those decisions to what fits the party line. Worse, almost every council concludes its pronouncements with anathemas upon everyone not subscribing to them. These claim to condemn to Hell all those who happen to be the losers in the partisan process. In the Fourth Century the condemned Arians prospered for a time as the majority party. In the Fifth Century the Third Ecumenical Council made heretics forever after of the Nestorians (who nevertheless became the most widespread Christian body until Tamerlane destoyed their territory in the Fourteenth Century). Two decades later the Fourth General Council made heretics of the Monophysites, but they are still numerous in our own time in various Middle Eastern nations. We must divest ourselves of the ridiculous anathemas, even were we to hold to the positive teachings of the councils themselves.
The Spirit of Truth is in the Church itself. For all practical purposes we know the Church in its liturgy of worship. The basis of reunion should be mutual acceptance of each other's liturgy, to the extent current worship traces back to earliest times and/or agrees with other current worship forms. The history of liturgy has found that there are five families of liturgies that trace back as far as we can go. Where the families agree, we can accept we have truth in what is said in worship.
Fortunately all the five families (and the four main branches of the Church, the Western, Eastern Orthodox, Monophysite, and Nestorian) all agree on using the Nicene Creed. This itself requires a little explaining, as it does not precede 381 with the form from Nicaea modified at the Second General Council. The opponents of the Nicene Creed, the Arians, all disappeared from history within a few centuries. The four surviving branches all accept the first two general councils. So for practical purposes, accepting the universal liturgy principle incorporates the essence of the first two councils, anyway. All the five liturgical families incorporated the decision of the Fourth Century.
This introduces the complication that we have no witness to what was necessarily the worship of the earliest church. Each current church body must thus recognize that its particularities do not likely apply to the whole church. The five families must be compared for consensus. Not that each church must purge itself automatically of whatever differs from other bodies, but members and prospective converts should not be told to believe only what the particular tradition teaches. Sure, there should be some intense study of which parts of current worship practices are out-of-sync with univeral consensus and early tradition. The Western branch has already done this.
Unlike the rest of you, I can't say, "Call a general council, and we'll settle it all there!" Maybe if we did, God would step in and make sure this council got it right, but I can't assume that, given my own principle. What it would take would be the Pope admitting he is not infallible. For starters he could admit the injudiciousness of the anathemas officiously attached in 1854 by Pope Pius IX to his self-proclaimed Immaculate Conception of Mary. I never read this before or during my tenure as a Roman Catholic, and I certainly would not have joined if I had. If the other papally infallible dogma, 1950's Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, has similar anathemas, do likewise. (I understood when I joined in 1969 that the only two infallible papal pronouncements were these two. RC traditionalists call a lot more infallible, but since that's debatable, we can ignore them.) The Assumption is a doctrine that the Eastern Orthodox do not necessarily denounce, as it is very traditional as the dormition of Mary.
Adam

[scholasticus]

what is needed is for the Roman Church to voluntarily bring Herself utterly under the aegis of the Canonical Orthodox Church, and the first 7 councils, and confess her having strayed from those councils in doctrine and action against that Church, and to make an effort at turning away from those errors.

Just for interest, how do you *know* which 7 are canonical?

OK, the Church says so... but who is the authoritative voice of the Church in such matters? Do you have an overall "Ecumenical Patriarch" who fulfils this (somewhat "popelike") function?

Aren't there also tons of other more-or-less Apostolic communities around the fringes who split from you (and us!) before the 7th Council?

I'm talking mainly from an epistomological point of view - how does does a poor sinful (but horrifically-scientifically educated - I have a Master in Physics) pew-warmer like me *know* that his Church is Apostolic and Catholic?

I'm not interested in fighting any battles, old or new. I genuinely want to understand.

I left the Anglicans and the Evangelical Frees behind not because 100% of their officially held doctrines were bad - far from it! - but just I wanted to meet the Apostles and be in communion with them like it says in the Bible.

I personally drop the Filioque at Mass anyhow (better than changing another part of the Creed to "for us {blank} and our salvation"... urgh), and have yet to be convinced that it's an obstacle to communion if you have read the Bible at all.

The Bible says the Spirit comes from the Father. It says the Spirit comes from the Son. In my poor sinful, but English-speaking understanding, this merits the word "and". Arguments about economy vs theology seem to prove too much).

Some of us poor sinners don't have time to sit around and argue theology. Actually most of us... so we are counting on you lucky boys (I am talking to Catholics just as much!) to put aside your grievances and think this one out - because we the laymen are gonna suffer for your mistakes now (but at least it's clear that you theologians are gonna pay in purgatory... or worse).

[George Blaisdell]

Just for interest, how do you *know* which 7 are canonical?


They are the ones that the undivided Church of the first thousand years agreed are the 7.


OK, the Church says so... but who is the authoritative voice of the Church in such matters? Do you have an overall "Ecumenical Patriarch" who fulfils this (somewhat "popelike") function?


I think you will find that it is the Church as a WHOLE that affirms the councils. The Roman Church most certainly CLAIMS the first 7 councils, even though in fact they have gone far in their prodigal journey... But you can go to just about any Church in the Eastern Orthodox communion of the Church and you will find them affirmed, and more than that, held fast to, and where violated, then violated as a confession of sin and weakness... All, for instance, believe the counciliar directions for fasting, yet many do not in fact adhere to the fasts...


Aren't there also tons of other more-or-less Apostolic communities around the fringes who split from you (and us!) before the 7th Council?


There are some major communions who are not in communion as of now with us, besides the Roman Church. The Oriental Orthodox, for instance, and the Coptic Church, and yet the differences of these, and us, in practice, is miniscule... Yet it is the Eastern Orthodox that have held the "center" of Christendom...


I'm talking mainly from an epistomological point of view - how does does a poor sinful (but horrifically-scientifically educated - I have a Master in Physics) pew-warmer like me *know* that his Church is Apostolic and Catholic?


The history is pretty clear and plain - The Church will tell you which Churches are in communion with the Church, and it is clearly the case that the Roman Church split Herself off from the communion of the rest of the Apostolic Churches in 1054... She is in communion only with Herself - Her last patriarch could feel, in his chest, the missingness of a lung, and he grieved for the reunion, that the missing lung of his Church might be restored.


I'm not interested in fighting any battles, old or new. I genuinely want to understand.


There is no rocket science to it... It is very simple... Just follow the hi8story of the Church...


I left the Anglicans and the Evangelical Frees behind not because 100% of their officially held doctrines were bad - far from it! - but just I wanted to meet the Apostles and be in communion with them like it says in the Bible.


You will meet them in Orthodoxy - And they are an AWESOME encounter...!!


I personally drop the Filioque at Mass anyhow (better than changing another part of the Creed to "for us {blank} and our salvation"... urgh), and have yet to be convinced that it's an obstacle to communion if you have read the Bible at all.


At a personal level, and in the communion of Rome, it is not an obstacle at all... In Orthodoxy, to add it, privately and silently in Church, and then receive, would be a spiritual disaster, and especially if not confessed, repented, and forgiven...


The Bible says the Spirit comes from the Father. It says the Spirit comes from the Son. In my poor sinful, but English-speaking understanding, this merits the word "and". Arguments about economy vs theology seem to prove too much).


To process ontologically is not to merely be a messenger, of to go at the bidding of someone. It is to have one's ground of being in the One from Whom One is processed... Yes, the Father and the Son 'send' the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit, being fully God, sends Himself as well...


Some of us poor sinners don't have time to sit around and argue theology. Actually most of us... so we are counting on you lucky boys (I am talking to Catholics just as much!) to put aside your grievances and think this one out - because we the laymen are gonna suffer for your mistakes now (but at least it's clear that you theologians are gonna pay in purgatory... or worse).


I agree that the flock has no ability to sit around argue theology, and decide what is true... I sure don't... And if anything here on T-Web has ever been proven true, in all the debates, it is the fact that no argument won or lost has forced anything other than the argument, and then not for long... And that is why it is so eggregious for one Church to unilaterally ADD TO the words of the Symbol of the Faith and then try to force that addition on the rest of the Church... It never should have happened, and yet it DID happen, and the fix is for the errant Church to go back to the start, confess the error without self justification, repent from the error and those that ensued from it, ask forgiveness, and take it from there.

It most assurredly is NOT a matter of negotiating to some middle ground...

Arsenios

[scholasticus]

Mr B,

OK, let me tell you; compared to the rest of Physics, rocket science is actually quite easy!

It is very simple... Just follow the hi8story of the Church...

I'm sure I can't be the only one who sees the problem here!

To process ontologically is not to merely be a messenger, of to go at the bidding of someone. It is to have one's ground of being in the One from Whom One is processed... Yes, the Father and the Son 'send' the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit, being fully God, sends Himself as well...

This is exactly what I mean. Economy vs. Theology. Ouch.

I know the difference in meaning between the terms used there; I just don't see how this logic has any opposition to that little "and" whatsoever. There are precisely 2 words at stake here; not a ream of theological / economical explanations.

If someone "merely sends" Whose word effects what it signifies, then I would say there is an ontology at work there (translate it into Greek, Slavonic or Latin or whatever - you'll find that logic is not changed!).

If we look at John's Gospel (the only one to include Pentecost, as Raniero Cantalamessa argues) in conjunction with Acts, I think it becomes clear that Christ has a relation to the Spirit which is analogous to that of the Father to the Word (but not identical - the distinction "proceding vs begetting" is not confused) in more than an economical sense.

Do we monkey with the "monarchy"? There is even a Western Council (or a synod or something, look it up if you're interested!) which explicitly declared the Father as the sole principle of the Godhead. That clears it up fine for me.

Perhaps we could have a new thread for Ecclesial Pneumatology? After all, that would be THE most ecumenical way to look at things. There was definitely unity for at least a couple of days after Pentecost ;)

[scholasticus]

I love all that stuff about burning couches etc.

I agree it seems a good idea that we try to look at each other's perspective... how do you think it feels to have these cr*ppy popes in our lives?! At least EO have kept a reasonable amount of dignity through the ages.

Still, that's our cross, I guess.

[George Blaisdell]

Mr B,
This is exactly what I mean. Economy vs. Theology. Ouch.


Well, while you're licking your wounds, you will find a soothing balm to be found in your recollection of the fact that the Symbol of the Faith is not about Economy, and that an Ecumenical Council had already ruled [the 5th, I believe it was], in its prophetic wisdom, I should add, that there were to be NO ADDITIONS to the Symbol of the Faith... For the ugly matter of the addition of the Filioque to the Creed had been raising its head in early reports from the West, and the Council, affirmed by those Councils following it, sought to head off the disaster early on...

To no avail...


I know the difference in meaning between the terms used there; I just don't see how this logic has any opposition to that little "and" whatsoever. There are precisely 2 words at stake here; not a ream of theological / economical explanations.


Then you disagree with both Constantinople and Rome at the 5th, 6th and 7th...


If someone "merely sends" Whose word effects what it signifies, then I would say there is an ontology at work there (translate it into Greek, Slavonic or Latin or whatever - you'll find that logic is not changed!).


If I send you to the store, it is a far cry from your existence being predicated upon your procession from my Being... One is Theological [ontological], and the other is Economic [ie a matter of logistics].


If we look at John's Gospel (the only one to include Pentecost, as Raniero Cantalamessa argues) in conjunction with Acts, I think it becomes clear that Christ has a relation to the Spirit which is analogous to that of the Father to the Word (but not identical - the distinction "proceding vs begetting" is not confused) in more than an economical sense.


You and I are not here to correct the theology of the Church. If there was a schism oveer this matter, then it is important.


Do we monkey with the "monarchy"? There is even a Western Council (or a synod or something, look it up if you're interested!) which explicitly declared the Father as the sole principle of the Godhead. That clears it up fine for me.


That may well be fine for you, but this is way beyond you and me...


Perhaps we could have a new thread for Ecclesial Pneumatology? After all, that would be THE most ecumenical way to look at things. There was definitely unity for at least a couple of days after Pentecost ;)


There was unity for a thousand years - Even when the Filioque was being confessed as an addition in the west. The unity was lost when Roma decided to enforce her own aberrant confession upon the rest of the Churches. In that action, She separated herself from the rest of the Church, and became prodigal...

Our sorting out of things and matters theological on Ecclessiological Pneumatology will not help this matter of the reunification of Rome with the rest of the Apostolic Churches...

Arsenios

[scholasticus]

"the Symbol of the Faith is not about Economy"...

so, we can ignore the parts about creation... the Incarnation... and the part about the Church...?

I'm sure that the actual details of the debate really are beyond me. But I am also sure that Christ and the Church wouldn't put such a huge barrier there with no possibility of getting a handle on it.

At the moment I come down on the Catholic side. If someone convinced me otherwise, I would hop over to Orthodoxy. As I said, I don't have an axe to grind. I can't see any other attitude making sense.

[Hail Mary]

But Ave, that's not a correct analogy from our POV. Remember, I'm trying to explain to you the Orthodox POV. If you really want to overcome the issues that separate us, then it is essential that you first understand our POV. And for you to do that, then you have to you have to let me use my analogy in my way - not try to correct it for me.

As I have already explained, from our POV, the sack of Constantinople was a consequence of an earlier cause (that cause being the papal supremacy claims and the filioque). If the papacy had not caused the rupture, the sack of Constantinople would not have happened.

Jezz, perhaps it is more appropriate to debate the issues which separate the Churches in another thread. I would be up for it, and think it would be a good educational experience.

[George Blaisdell]

"the Symbol of the Faith is not about Economy"...

so, we can ignore the parts about creation... the Incarnation... and the part about the Church...?


Please forgive me for hurrying - I did not mean the whole Symbol, as I mis-stated - But the [ontological] differentiation of the Persons of the Trinity within it.


I'm sure that the actual details of the debate really are beyond me. But I am also sure that Christ and the Church wouldn't put such a huge barrier there with no possibility of getting a handle on it.


Neither Christ nor the Church put such a barrier there, nor is it all that difficult to get a handle on it. The handle is the first 7 ecumenical Councils, and the return of the Church Prodigal [Rome] to the aegis of the authority of the Church Catholic, the Orthodox Communion of which She was once a part.


At the moment I come down on the Catholic side. If someone convinced me otherwise, I would hop over to Orthodoxy. As I said, I don't have an axe to grind. I can't see any other attitude making sense.


Then, if you come down on the Catholic side, you should still be able to see that with your doctrine of the "development of doctrine", that there has been development of doctrine "beyond" the 7 councils. Now if you look closely, you will find that the 7 councils did not develop any doctrine at all, but merely defended the faith given once, for all, to the Apostles... It was not given to them to "develop", but to proclaim... And that such "development" of doctrine on the part of Rome constitutes Her prodigality...

Orthodoxy does not "develop" doctrine, nor did the Church of the first thousand years, of which Rome was so important a part...

Arsenios

[Jezz]

Jezz, perhaps it is more appropriate to debate the issues which separate the Churches in another thread. I would be up for it, and think it would be a good educational experience.
Sounds like a good idea. I apologise if you feel that I have taken your thread too far off-topic.

Unfortunately, I think I'm going to be pretty scarce over the next couple of weeks. If I don't manage to show up and create a new thread, or participate in whatever thread you create, then please forgive me.

God bless.