Roman/Orthodox Catholic: Unity (Jesus Christ, priests, ritual, testimony, reject)

[Scott1]

IacobPersul (James) and I started a conversation in another thread.... but this is the proper place to have this discussion.

Question: What are the prospects of unity for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Churches?

What are the major conflicts?

How do we achieve unity?

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

I'm not sure what it would take for reunion in the opinion of other Orthodox, but from my own point of view I'm afraid to say that most of the give would have to be on the Roman Catholic side.

Firstly, we're unlikely to get anywhere while the Uniate issue is so hot. What I mean is, the Uniates in the Ukraine should stop asking for their Cardinal to be a Patriarch, amicable discussions over Church property should be begun etc. I'm not one to suggest the Uniates shouldn't exist, but they need to stop antagonising (often deliberately) the Orthodox. I don't think this should be too hard to achieve, though.

On matters of doctrine, there are really two major issues I can see, and these are the ones that precipitated the Schism in the first place. Firstly, the Pope must be willing to be first in honour without having authority over the other Patriarchs and secondly the filioque must be removed from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. These are really non-negotiable, I feel. I realise that the Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque has started to move closer to the understanding we have of the Holy Spirit only having His origin in the Father and an economic procession through the Son, but the Creed is solely concerned with the origin of the Holy Spirit and not how He comes into the world in history.

There are, of course, a host of lesser issues, but these are the only ones I feel would need to be accepted up front. The others could probably be settled in a council.

I hope a few others jump in with their views..... if not, I'll start in on this later.

Scott

[Scott1]

OK.... I'll get this started.... hopefully James (and others) will jump in later...

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

On matters of doctrine, there are really two major issues I can see, and these are the ones that precipitated the Schism in the first place. Firstly, the Pope must be willing to be first in honour without having authority over the other Patriarchs

Why? The Roman Church wants unity, not dominion over the faith.... you keep your Patriarchs and continue doing what you're doing.... nothing would change... well, except we'd like a certain feast day removed from your liturgy. Communion does not mean that the Orthodox faith would fall under the control of the Papacy, and the Pope would not be under the control of a Patriarch or Council.

and secondly the filioque must be removed from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

..... we handled this about 600 years ago at the Council of Florence.... to clarify:
The Second Council of Lyons (1274) reflected the Latin approach in stressing the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque). The Council of Florence (1438-1440) reaffirmed the Latin approach, but allowed also for the Greek approach, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (per Filium). For the Greeks the Filioque implied a double principle in God; for the Latins the per Filium implied a subordination of Son to Father. Neither side intended what the other side thought was implied, and much of the controversy was, in fact, unnecessary.

To further clarify:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. ...is 100% correct to a Roman Catholic.

Anything else?

[James the Persian]

Scott,

Firstly, what feast day is it that you think we'd need to remove from our calendar? I'm afraid I don't know which one you mean. While we're on the subject, though, there are certain problems we would have with the Roman Catholic calendar also. The one that springs to mind is that you have 'Saint' Josaphat Kuntsevich. He would clearly have to be removed from our point of view, given the fact that he was directly responsible for massacring Orthodox Christians. I'm sure we'd both have issues with some of the other's saints, not to mention the date of Easter. The calendars are likely to cause difficulties I would think.
I'm glad to hear that you seem to think Rome would not want dominion over a unified Church, but forgive me for being a little skeptical about this. The Unia does give me cause for concern as it seems that it was achieved on the grounds of submission to the Pope rather than doctrinal unity. This would, of course, be unacceptable to the Orthodox. Maybe you have a different perspective on this and, if so, I'd be interested to hear it. The one thing I'd be a little wary of is where you say the Pope would not be under any council. Even an Ecumenical Council? Our Patriarchs are all under the Ecumenical Councils, even the EP, and I would expect the same for the Pope if we were to reunify. Basically, he'd be first among equals, able to call an Ecumenical Council and have the right to chair it when it sat, but he would be bound by the Council's decision whatever that was. The Pope's approval, however, would not be necessary for determining whether or not a council is Ecumenical. Would that seem acceptable to Roman Catholics?
As for the filioque, you seem to be reading more into what I said than was meant. I did not mean that the current Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque was wrong, but that it has no place in the wording of the Creed. The Creed speaks of the ultimate origin of the persons in the Godhead and not the economic procession of the Holy Spirit in mankind's history. This is why the Orthodox equivalent was never attached to the Creed - they're talking of different things. I can't imagine that any Orthodox, clergy or lay, would budge on this. Sorry.
As for the Council of Florence, for us that settled nothing, as I'm sure you're aware. It was resoundingly rejected by the whole Church for the politically motivated fudge that it was, being more about attempts to get western help against the Turks than anything else. I would have to say that you're right in that we regard a dual principle in God as heretical and hence would not accept the filioque in the Creed, but it goes further than that. For us the filioque (as used in the Creed, note) makes the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to the Father and the Son and contradicts Scripture. I don't know what the Roman Catholic position is re. Scriptural support for the filioque. As for your objection to the Son being subordinate to the Father if 'through the Son' is used, I don't quite understand. There is a form of subordination in that the Son voluntarily submits His will to the Father's (as does the Holy Spirit), but I don't see how temporal procession through the Son has any effect on the actual relationship between Father and Son. Could you explain the Roman Catholic understanding of this?

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

Firstly, what feast day is it that you think we'd need to remove from our calendar?

Me personally? Nothing. I've read that the RCC would like the Feast Day for Photius removed.... but I'm fairly sure that would be open for discussion.
Like I said, I personally would not care to change anything about the Eastern Church....

The one that springs to mind is that you have 'Saint' Josaphat Kuntsevich.

I'm sorry that I'm not educated about the man.... all I can say is that I would not let ANY historical facts prevent unity.

I'm glad to hear that you seem to think Rome would not want dominion over a unified Church, but forgive me for being a little skeptical about this. The Unia does give me cause for concern as it seems that it was achieved on the grounds of submission to the Pope rather than doctrinal unity.

I understand your skeptisism, but a little reading of post-Vatican II literature will solve that. As far as the Unia: two different issues.... the Unia's inclusion into the Roman Rite is not the same as what I propose for unity of East/West.
Full Communion does not mean that we all must all meld into one Rite, led either by the Pope or the EP's.

The one thing I'd be a little wary of is where you say the Pope would not be under any council. Even an Ecumenical Council?

What I mean is, the unity would not have to include dominion, by either side.... besides, it's not like there is going to be a EC any time soon... which Emperor is going to call the Council?
Again, to clarify, I mean that the Pope would not be under the dominion of FUTURE EC's.... we'll continue along, and you do the same.

Basically, he'd be first among equals, able to call an Ecumenical Council and have the right to chair it when it sat, but he would be bound by the Council's decision whatever that was. The Pope's approval, however, would not be necessary for determining whether or not a council is Ecumenical. Would that seem acceptable to Roman Catholics?

Which Ecumenical Council (that Orthodox recognize) was called by a Pope? Not any that I know of.... there will be no future EC..... ever..... there are no longer Emperors to call them..... and even if there was, why would we go? The Eastern Church (as much as I love you guys) has little influence in the world... John Paul II dies and most of the world STOPPED.... most Orthodox Christians I have met could not name all of the Patriarchs (but they knew the Pope's name ).

I did not mean that the current Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque was wrong, but that it has no place in the wording of the Creed.

It's not in the Creed... Florence allowed for boths forms (with and without the filioque).... for our discussion, it's out.

For us the filioque (as used in the Creed, note) makes the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to the Father and the Son and contradicts Scripture.

Now you seem to be missing the point.... a few minutes of education will show you that the RCC DOES not view the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and Son.... I can give you some quotes later if you'd like.
This objection is based in your opinion alone... it is not fact.

Scott

[Joannicius]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Me personally? Nothing. I've read that the RCC would like the Feast Day for Photius removed.... but I'm fairly sure that would be open for discussion.
Like I said, I personally would not care to change anything about the Eastern Church....
I'm sorry that I'm not educated about the man.... all I can say is that I would not let ANY historical facts prevent unity.
I understand your skeptisism, but a little reading of post-Vatican II literature will solve that. As far as the Unia: two different issues.... the Unia's inclusion into the Roman Rite is not the same as what I propose for unity of East/West.
Full Communion does not mean that we all must all meld into one Rite, led either by the Pope or the EP's.
What I mean is, the unity would not have to include dominion, by either side.... besides, it's not like there is going to be a EC any time soon... which Emperor is going to call the Council?
Again, to clarify, I mean that the Pope would not be under the dominion of FUTURE EC's.... we'll continue along, and you do the same.
Which Ecumenical Council (that Orthodox recognize) was called by a Pope? Not any that I know of.... there will be no future EC..... ever..... there are no longer Emperors to call them..... and even if there was, why would we go? The Eastern Church (as much as I love you guys) has little influence in the world... John Paul II dies and most of the world STOPPED.... most Orthodox Christians I have met could not name all of the Patriarchs (but they knew the Pope's name ).
It's not in the Creed... Florence allowed for boths forms (with and without the filioque).... for our discussion, it's out.
Now you seem to be missing the point.... a few minutes of education will show you that the RCC DOES not view the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and Son.... I can give you some quotes later if you'd like.
This objection is based in your opinion alone... it is not fact.

Scott

It is interesting to read your dialogue but there are some facts that have to be understood before you guys keep going back and forth. There is one major issue neither of you has addressed and I want to see what each of you have to say about it. That is the understanding of the Uncreated Light which the RC historically has rejected and I think it was St. Gregory that expounded on it and was rejected early on by the West categorically. As you both probably know this is also part of the understanding of the three-fold process of salvation.... purification, illumination and Theosis. The RC (to my understanding) does not understand or agree with this. Also the Theological perspective as to whether one is "catophatic" or "apophatic" in there dogmas. (not sure about the spelling) Just thought that I would inject some not so minor issues that should be thrown into the ring. Continue On, I'm enjoying it. I'm not scholarly as you two, so I'll watch again until I can keep quiet no longer

Oh yes, the fact that the Council of Florence was completely rejected by the Orthodox East and with the understanding that I have, we will never ratify it, should be of concern to the RC.

I'm curious Scott, have you read the account of St. Mark of Ephesus?

We can disagree and still love each other.

[Scott1]

First of all, let me say:

Originally Posted by Joannicius

We can disagree and still love each other.

AMEN!

There is one major issue neither of you has addressed and I want to see what each of you have to say about it. That is the understanding of the Uncreated Light

Sorry... I must say that I'm ignorant about this.... I don't know how to respond... is this a doctrine? A physical phenomenon?

Also the Theological perspective as to whether one is "catophatic" or "apophatic" in there dogmas.

Sorry.... no clue here either.

Oh yes, the fact that the Council of Florence was completely rejected by the Orthodox East and with the understanding that I have, we will never ratify it, should be of concern to the RC.

Well... it's not a concern..... for me at least. Jesus Christ wants us to be united.... everything else is secondary. If the two Churches want to follow the will of the Lord, we'll work things out.

I'm curious Scott, have you read the account of St. Mark of Ephesus?

Sorry again, no, I have not.

Please keep posting... this is not a one on one debate.... your input is appreciated.

Scott

[James the Persian]

Scott,

I thought that you might perhaps be referring to St. Photios the Great. I hadn't realised he was a particularly big deal for the Roman Catholic churh, though. Personally, I can't imagine us being willing to remove his feast day, but who knows? It doesn't seem like a major issue compared to some of the others.
As for ecumenical councils, why do you think we couldn't have another? In actual fact we've been working towards another one for some time now, and we don't believe it's necessary that all such councils be called by an Emperor. Maybe, though, this is just a matter of semantics. I thought that the Roman Catholic church considered some of her post-Schism councils to be ecumenical?
Personally, I think that your dismissal of the filioque issue is too soon. We would, generally speaking, have a problem with even allowing the Creed to be recited with the filioque, not just if someone were to try to force it on us because we feel it is bad theology and that any true unity must be based on faith, not just organisational unity. I feel you are taking the issue too lightly, but I'm willing to end this part of the discussion here, after making one last point. I was not suggesting, as you said, that the RC church believed the Holy Spirit was inferior but that from an Orthodox perspective this is precisely the consequence of the filioque. It is not, therefore, mere opinion but fact, but I admit only from our perspective. There is certainly room for debate on this.
As Joannicius pointed out, there are a number of other major theological details that would need to be discussed. One of these is whether God's grace is uncreated or created (we say it's uncreated), theosis (which I don't think is held to in the west at all, the juridical understanding of salvation (linked to the understanding of theosis), etc. A smaller issue raised by Joannicius would be the Orthodox tendency to apophatic and western tendency towards catophatic theology, but that's really more of an issue of perspective, I feel. If you can let us know which of these things you're most interested in discussing, or any other areas you might feel are important then I'll be happy to respond.

James