What would be required for reconcilliation? (priests, ritual, virgin, beliefs)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Victor

I hope this is what you were looking for James.

Yes, indeed. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Ðanisty

I don't know if I've interpreted this right or not, but it seems that a lot of the dispute is generated by a different approach to the evolution of the church. Please correct me if I've gotten this all wrong. It looks like the RC church looks at the evolution of the church as a natural progression...something that was laid in foundation in the beginning and meant to become what it is. The EO, on the other hand, look to the beginning and see that as the perfect state of the church and believe the modern church should strive to maintain it. I can see the possibility of a lot problems arising from that.

No. This is often how it's portrayed by RCs and so I know what you mean but it is not something I recognise at all. I would say that the issue is not one of development v. no development (any Orthodox Christian who tells you there's been no development is either ignorant or dissembling) but one of legitimate v. illegitimate development. For us, any development must be holistic and each and every step must be firmly grounded in the faith delivered once to the Apostles. That which is legitimate might expound upon or clarify that faith but cannot alter it or introduce innovation - that's why we don't agree with Rome. We see innovations of ecclesiology and theology all over the place, particularly since the Schism because since then there have simply been no brakes on Rome's rather top down approach to the faith as the Pope of Rome is sole Patriarch there. Our approach, on the other hand, is decidedly bottom up, with the whole Church being involved. This is why we change so slowly and, to go back to Athanasius' example, why we find it so laughable when RCs assert that we were almost reconciled at Florence. Rome appears to see that all but one of the bishops at Florence signed as 'almost all the Church', whereas we see one bishop who refused and almost all the lower clergy, the laiety and the monastics following him as being far more significant than any number of bishops.

This is just an observation from someone who married into an RC family, but I think there is some merit to this (if I'm understanding it correctly).

RCs and others who are unfamiliar with Orthodoxy usually do, but it's only an observation that makes sense by taking an a priori western approach to the subject. I, personally, would say that one of the greatest and most significant differences between Christian east and west (I say this because OO ecclesiology is, if anything, slightly less centralised than ours even) is that Rome went decidedly heirarchical and stratified - and this affects their view of history and even theology to a degree - whereas the east has always been more holistic seeing the Church as a unity in diversity. Hence the fact that the RCs see their point of unity in the Papacy (hence you get Uniates who call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' specifically because they believe themselves to share a common faith with us rather than the Latins despite bending the knee to the Pope) whereas we see ours in a common faith. I can't help but notice that the major issues that caused the Schism revolve precisely around this difference - the Papal claims were decidedly an attempt to impose internal Roman ecclesiology on the whole Church and the fact that Rome had altered the Creed which served as the summation of the shared faith is also rather significant. I am not optimistic that we will reconcile but were Rome to drop the Papal claims and return to the Nicene Creed I would be. Those two innovations underpin everything that followed it seems to me and, where those underpinnings to disappear, I dare say that we could reconcile, though it might still take a very long time to iron things out. So long as they remain, though, the Schism is simply not healable.

James

[Victor]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

.....So long as they remain, though, the Schism is simply not healable.

As much as I hate to admit, you are probably right about that James. But as I said, I’ve had a tendency of holding on to this irrational hope in me.

If I may, I would like to address a couple things you noted [not as a counter] as a means to clarify things between us.

It is true that we sometimes have a tendency of having a top down approach (and it's not always a bad thing), but it is equally (I’d say even more so) as true that we have a bottom up approach. Just one example (of literally hundreds that can be noted), you’d search in vain to find the Pope acting on his own with regard to doctrinal issues. This is precisely why we have waited so long to declare Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption as ex cathedra dogma. In both instances, the popes involved received overwhelming solicitation from bishops, priests, and laymen, urging them to make the declarations. It was anything but a solely "top-down" act of arbitrary power. You have groups like the College of Cardinals, Synod of Bishops, and many more that bring the bottom to the top all the time. This is how we do things in our Church and it’s not something new and innovative.

It’s often said that Rome has been infected with hubris and although there is some truth in this, one only need to look at the politics within the Church to see just where the hubris existed. A read into the first Council and the matters that surrounded it gives you a glimpse of just how troublesome it got with Patriarchs and clergy in North Africa, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc. Priests ordaining other priest, Bishops holding their own local councils, and a number of other abuses. I'd actually argue that Hubris was mostly infecting the East. Just go back and read where most all the heretical teachings (to which both RC's and EO's now reject) were coming from. This isn't to say the West didn't, but it was nothing compared to what went on in the East. So it’s a false claim to say Rome alone sought power and was infected with hubris. This is the nature of politics and people in general, not just Rome. And one can see this in history.

On another note, it is true that EO’s recognize development (St. Gregory Palamas developed the notion of the energies of God in the 14th century) but they usually only do so under their in own terms. Of course we do the same, but once again, we look at history much differently then them. We look for “seeds” in history and will take “models” if it’s there. EO’s (as I understand) will look for “models” and reject “seeds”. This is the Sola Scriptura mentality that I lightly touched on in my first post.

[Ðanisty]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

No. This is often how it's portrayed by RCs and so I know what you mean but it is not something I recognise at all. I would say that the issue is not one of development v. no development (any Orthodox Christian who tells you there's been no development is either ignorant or dissembling) but one of legitimate v. illegitimate development. For us, any development must be holistic and each and every step must be firmly grounded in the faith delivered once to the Apostles. That which is legitimate might expound upon or clarify that faith but cannot alter it or introduce innovation - that's why we don't agree with Rome. We see innovations of ecclesiology and theology all over the place, particularly since the Schism because since then there have simply been no brakes on Rome's rather top down approach to the faith as the Pope of Rome is sole Patriarch there. Our approach, on the other hand, is decidedly bottom up, with the whole Church being involved. This is why we change so slowly and, to go back to Athanasius' example, why we find it so laughable when RCs assert that we were almost reconciled at Florence. Rome appears to see that all but one of the bishops at Florence signed as 'almost all the Church', whereas we see one bishop who refused and almost all the lower clergy, the laiety and the monastics following him as being far more significant than any number of bishops.


RCs and others who are unfamiliar with Orthodoxy usually do, but it's only an observation that makes sense by taking an a priori western approach to the subject. I, personally, would say that one of the greatest and most significant differences between Christian east and west (I say this because OO ecclesiology is, if anything, slightly less centralised than ours even) is that Rome went decidedly heirarchical and stratified - and this affects their view of history and even theology to a degree - whereas the east has always been more holistic seeing the Church as a unity in diversity. Hence the fact that the RCs see their point of unity in the Papacy (hence you get Uniates who call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' specifically because they believe themselves to share a common faith with us rather than the Latins despite bending the knee to the Pope) whereas we see ours in a common faith. I can't help but notice that the major issues that caused the Schism revolve precisely around this difference - the Papal claims were decidedly an attempt to impose internal Roman ecclesiology on the whole Church and the fact that Rome had altered the Creed which served as the summation of the shared faith is also rather significant. I am not optimistic that we will reconcile but were Rome to drop the Papal claims and return to the Nicene Creed I would be. Those two innovations underpin everything that followed it seems to me and, where those underpinnings to disappear, I dare say that we could reconcile, though it might still take a very long time to iron things out. So long as they remain, though, the Schism is simply not healable.

James

I would just like to give my non-Catholic opinion here. I don't see how what you're describing could be considered a compromise. You've basically said that the RC church would have to change everything that makes them different from the EO church, in which case they may as well just dissolve their church and convert. Now, that's neither good nor bad. It really all just depends on if a compromise is really sought in the first place and it seems to me like that isn't the case. If a compromise isn't needed and the two churches are happy enough to be apart, I don't see anything wrong with your position. It simply makes more sense to me though, for the two churches to recognize that reconciliation is not possible because both sides are asking for more than the other side is willing to give.