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

[James the Persian]

I've often been asked what would need to happen before Rome and Orthodoxy could be reconciled, what were the stumbling blocks to ending the Schism. I've always struggled to give a decent answer becaues the question of the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, not to mention all of the unhappy history between us in the intervening centuries since our divide often causes me to fail to se the wood for the trees. I have, however, just stumbled across the following article (about 9 pages in all, though the main points are listed on about 3 of them) by Fr. Thomas Hopko that seems to set out nicely the minimum requirements from our perspective.

It also notes, and this is important, that we too would have to repent and be willing to compromise on all else but the essentials of the faith. We can't simply demand that Rome becomes Orthodox if by that we mean that she ceases to be Roman, only if by Orthodox we mean right believing.

Here's the link:
http://htaoc.com/content/hopko_reunion.pdf

I offer this up for discussion to those who are interested. What might the sticking points be? Do any of the RCs here see certain, or even all, of the points as being impossible? Might such a Papacy perhaps bring about reconcilliation with other churches (I'm thinking here particularly of High Church Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox, though excluding nobody)?

I've deliberately placed this in this section because I have no desire to debate this. Such debates always get acrimonious and I am very conscious of the fact that mine is the lone eastern voice on this forum. I am interested in people's reactions to the document and in discussing the requirements voiced by Fr. Thomas in a kind and rational manner.

I would end by asking that the staff please keep an eye on this thread and close it if it turns into a debate.

James

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can only answer from an Anglican point of view.
The acceptance of the Pope as the Principal prince of the church has already been discussed and could be accepted.
This would be especially so if he was elected from leaders throughout the rejoined churches.

For us the principal problem would be the Place of women priests and Bishops within the church and their equality throughout the church. There could be no going back to a male only priesthood for us.
Nor could we accept the Idea no married priests.
As to the rest of the Dogma, we would find that of the EO easier to swallow, than that of Rome.

All that being said...
there is a real and distinct advantage in there being more than one "Church" in the world.
Christ seems to come to different peoples in different ways and the style and differences do much to spread the message of the "whole Church".

What I would see as more important is some closing of the Gaps in our beliefs to a point where we could share in a common Eucharist.

This I think, would have a more profound effect on Christianity unity than in sharing a Pope.

[athanasius]

We would have to work out the problems of the filioque clause(which in my mind wouldn't be too hard) and Papal Authority and perhaps a few clarifications of the Dogmas of the Virgin. I believe this is possible with the help of the Holy Spirit, though old prejudices die hard and it may take another 1000 years. However, there have been periods in history when we have almost reconciled(florence comes to mind).

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by athanasius

We would have to work out the problems of the filioque clause(which in my mind wouldn't be too hard) and Papal Authority and perhaps a few clarifications of the Dogmas of the Virgin. I believe this is possible with the help of the Holy Spirit, though old prejudices die hard and it may take another 1000 years. However, there have been periods in history when we have almost reconciled(florence comes to mind).

Florence is a very poor example. There were several occasions between 1054 and the 4th Crusade where things looked like we might possibly reconcile, but Florence, no matter how it was perceived by Rome was never anything more than an attempt by certain politicians, both inside and outside the Church, to sell out their faith for military aid against the Turks. The most important person at the Robber Council at Florence was St. Mark of Ephesus, for he was well known, even to the westerners, to represent the vast majority of the Church, especially the laiety and monastics. That is why the Pope remarked that it was 'all for nothing' on seeing that his signature was not there.

There was never any prospect of reconcilliation at Florence. The Roman representatives had hoped to dominate the Orthodox (all compromise was expected on the Orthodox side only) by exploiting a moment of political weakness. Luckily St. Mark was unwilling to compromise his faith in that way and the people chose to break communion with those who signed the union until they repented. If Florence seems to you a good example of a time when we are indeed right to be wary of talk of reconcilliation coming from Rome.

James

[MidnightBlue]

I don't think reconciliation is possible without one side or the other giving up some fundamental quality. The Catholic view of the papacy, for instance, is simply incompatible with Orthodoxy, and the Catholics have painted themselves into a dogmatic corner on the subject. One side or the other would pretty much have to capitulate.

Even if the litany of dogmatic snags could be worked out, though, there's a greater problem. Catholic theology and spirituality are completely incompatible with Orthodox theology and spirituality. It's not just a matter of differing dogmas that must be reconciled; there are fundamental differences of outlook and perspective, fundamentally different approaches to theology and spirituality. Although it surprises Protestants to hear it, Catholicism has more in common with almost any Protestant Church than with the Orthodox Church. It would be easier for Rome to reconcile with the Primitive Baptists than with the Orthodox.

That's why the ecumenical movement is so controversial in Orthodoxy, and why Orthodox who hope for reconciliation with Rome are so often vilified. There is a feeling that reconciliation would necessarily rob the Orthodox of all the things that are important about their faith. Orthodox sense that they are being asked to abandon their faith for something quite alien to it. I think they're right.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Even if the litany of dogmatic snags could be worked out, though, there's a greater problem. Catholic theology and spirituality are completely incompatible with Orthodox theology and spirituality. It's not just a matter of differing dogmas that must be reconciled; there are fundamental differences of outlook and perspective, fundamentally different approaches to theology and spirituality. Although it surprises Protestants to hear it, Catholicism has more in common with almost any Protestant Church than with the Orthodox Church. It would be easier for Rome to reconcile with the Primitive Baptists than with the Orthodox.

I had no idea, Bill. In fact, I thought it was the other way around, that Protestants had more in common with the Orthodox Church.

You have just settled what I'm going to read about this week, thanks.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

I can only answer from an Anglican point of view.
The acceptance of the Pope as the Principal prince of the church has already been discussed and could be accepted.

I thought that to be the case

This would be especially so if he was elected from leaders throughout the rejoined churches.

This is not actually something we could agree with because, in effect, that would make the Pope the bishop of bishops in that his Synod would be the entire Church rather than just the Holy Synod of Rome. The point for us is that the Pope must not be over the other bishops at all, but rather more like their representative. Your suggestion would be to make the idea of a Universal Pontiff a little more democratic. For us that idea is unacceptable even if he were elected by the entire body of the Church - a bishop is a bishop.

For us the principal problem would be the Place of women priests and Bishops within the church and their equality throughout the church. There could be no going back to a male only priesthood for us.

Which rather kills the idea. There is no way we, the OOs or Rome is ever likely to have a female priesthood. Deconesses, on the other hand, are a possibility.

Nor could we accept the Idea no married priests.

Well Fr. Thomas adressed that in the document. We Orthodox have married priests (in fact married priests are preferred for normal parishes) and there's absolutely no reason why this should be forbidden, but I thoughht you knew this? We do have the discipline of having celibate bishops but I could foresee no reason why married bishops couldn't also be allowed if a reconcilliation were to occur - it's just a practical discipline, not dogma.

As to the rest of the Dogma, we would find that of the EO easier to swallow, than that of Rome.

Probably because there's an awful lot less of it and most of it you already accept. We haven't ahd the tendency Rome has had over the last millennium to dogmatise more more, often rather inconsequential, aspects of the faith (I think here mainly of the Marian dogmas of Rome).

All that being said...
there is a real and distinct advantage in there being more than one "Church" in the world.

What advantage? I honestly see no advantage at all over one Church made up of many autocephalous local churches. There should be one Church and all should agree on the Essentials. That would be the ideal. That doesn't mean that all the local churches should be identical however - ours certainly aren't.

Christ seems to come to different peoples in different ways and the style and differences do much to spread the message of the "whole Church".

This is not something that would necessarily have to be abandoned if the Church was united. Unity in diversity - the essence of Trinitarian ecclesiology.

What I would see as more important is some closing of the Gaps in our beliefs to a point where we could share in a common Eucharist.

In order to do that we would have to have closed them so far that we are reconciled. For all three of our communions to be able to share the Eucharist is to be in communion with the Church - they are one and the same so if we could share the Eucharist we would already be united. In other words, the relationship between us would be more like that between my church and the Russian one than between us and the OOs (with whom I genuinely believe we have no real theological disagreement and yet we remain out of communion).

This I think, would have a more profound effect on Christianity unity than in sharing a Pope.

This would be unity. The Pope is a side issue. Sorting out his position in any reconciled church, though, is a very important side issue because Rome has made the Papacy vital to their ecclesiology. None of the rest of us might agree with this (none of us do), but it has, obviously, got to be taken into account in any talk of reconcilliation.

James