OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 09:45:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Which do you believe are legitimate obstacles to reunion?
Papal Infallibility - 76 (11.1%)
Papal Supremacy/Universal Jurisdiction - 75 (10.9%)
Filioque Clause - 53 (7.7%)
Proselytism (of other side) - 16 (2.3%)
Clerical Celibacy - 29 (4.2%)
Leavened/Unleavened Bread - 19 (2.8%)
Dating of Pascha - 21 (3.1%)
Purgatory (as doctrine) - 52 (7.6%)
Immaculate Conception (as doctrine) - 58 (8.4%)
Divorce (stances on) - 31 (4.5%)
The Epiclesis (or lack of) - 12 (1.7%)
Thomistic Theology (Aquinas) - 37 (5.4%)
Hesychasm - 11 (1.6%)
Merit and Satisfaction soteriology - 40 (5.8%)
Transubstantiation - 23 (3.3%)
Assumption of Mary (as doctrine) - 28 (4.1%)
Merit/Satisfaction Soteriology - 32 (4.7%)
Philosophy & Scholasticism (as opposed to Empirical Theology) - 27 (3.9%)
Original Sin (vs. Ancestral Sin) - 47 (6.8%)
Total Voters: 80

Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox-Catholic Obstacles to Reunion? (A Poll)  (Read 7944 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #135 on: April 10, 2011, 02:48:11 PM »

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
It is for this reason that I am glad to have found this forum. Even though it is saddening that there is so much that separates us, at least I am not being ignorantly optimistic like I used to be.

Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?

While I would prefer the term overly optimistic instead of the one used above, almost every person* that is Roman Catholic that I've met could be described in this way. There seems to be a general idea that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are just sister Churches or basically the same Church, and it was merely some pesky political issues a long long time ago in a land far far away that resulted in the division.


*I am excluding 1) people who post on internet forums, and 2) people who are in traditionalist Catholic groups.

Let me start by saying that what I posted to Wyatt yesterday afternoon (to wit "Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?") was meant as a joke. Granted, it wasn't a very good joke, and may have even been a little mean-spirited in the way it stereotypes Anglicans.

Funny thing is, I think you've illustrated that Orthodox tend to stereotype Catholics in much the same way that Catholics stereotype Anglicans. Okay, sure there are lot of Catholics (and Anglicans of course) who favor some sort of cheap ecumenism, or whatever you want to call it; but take a look at the official dialogues (whether Catholic-Orthodox, Catholic-Anglican, Orthodox-Anglican, etc.). Do you really think that those meetings are nothing more than "You know what? We're really the same already. Let just go ahead and declare full communion with each other. If anyone complains we'll say that they're unecumenical."?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #136 on: April 10, 2011, 02:50:42 PM »


Quote
Just the thing is that the Ukrainian nationalists from Galicja should give up reading Evola and Doncov, and, read and preach the Gospels.

Just the thing is that the Ukrainians should stop being Ukrainians.
A ha!
Huh It sounds as if that is an apology of Sovietism. The funny thing being is that in Belarus and Ukraine, the governments are more pro-Soviet than in Russia. I do not understand this but it is so.
Julius Evola was an Italian neo-pagan imperialist fascist ideologian, who lived in the 20th century, who today is quite popular in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
(I think everyone knows that I like to create an alternate reality on the internet.)
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #137 on: April 10, 2011, 02:53:03 PM »

Funny thing is, I think you've illustrated that Orthodox tend to stereotype Catholics in much the same way that Catholics stereotype Anglicans. Okay, sure there are lot of Catholics (and Anglicans of course) who favor some sort of cheap ecumenism, or whatever you want to call it; but take a look at the official dialogues (whether Catholic-Orthodox, Catholic-Anglican, Orthodox-Anglican, etc.). Do you really think that those meetings are nothing more than "You know what? We're really the same already. Let just go ahead and declare full communion with each other. If anyone complains we'll say that they're unecumenical."?

I was mostly thinking of conversations with Catholic family members, especially my grandparents and uncle. Nonetheless, I don't think--and I shouldn't have implied--that so many Catholics are willy nilly about such things. So, fair enough, I was indeed stereotyping and shouldn't have done so.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Mark Bej
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 3


« Reply #138 on: April 12, 2011, 07:40:25 PM »

SolEX01 wrote:

I don't think Proselytism is as significant of an issue perhaps when dealing with the Eastern Catholics.  Rome would have to clarify their existence and force them to become Latin Rite like the rest of Roman Catholicism or allow them to schism.  Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States and elsewhere and force them under the nearest Latin Rite Diocese/Archdiocese.

Most Eastern Catholics (further: ECs) certainly start out that way as a result of their parents' choice to baptize them in that communion. However, as adults, they remain ECs by their own choice. Their disappearance and/or absorption have wished for by the more polemical on both sides of the East-West Christian divide, but such a wish is unrealistic.

"Force [Eastern Catholics] to become Latin Rite" how? And would this not violate the 34th Apostolic Canon? Would this not be exactly the sort of overbearing, egregious exercise of papal primacy that is at the heart of the problem? Might this not become a repetition of what happened in the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches in the first millenium? And who would carry out the dictum? There is no Empire to enforce this sort of thing? And would not the press have a field day? "United Catholic-Orthodox hierarchy expels 100+ bishops." And what of the Eastern Catholics' own wishes? Are their wishes not to be respected, and have they no right of self-determination?

"Allow them to schism" ... I'm not sure what the implication is. Do you mean to schism into their own, non-canonical (from the view of a newly reunited Rome-Constantinople) jurisdiction? But this would seem to oppose exactly one of the major complaints of the Orthodox vis-à-vis Uniatism, that union merely resulted in a different schism. "God persuades, He does not compel; for violence is foreign to the divine nature" [Letter to Diognetus, 2nd c.]

"Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies" ... Presumably, you mean that the eparchies of the current Orthodox communion would be preserved. Very well, but which ones? Who would be protos in the United States, for example? The Russian metropolitan? Or the Greek? Or would the country be split into Alaska and northern west coast for the former, and the rest of the country for the latter? And who decides? Or ... since the diocese of the (RC) Archbishop of Baltimore would be the oldest founded among all the dioceses of the putatively reunited church, would all of the present Orthodox parishes come under the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishop?

I think that there is far too little realization, by both sides, of the desire, yes, historically, but even to the present day, of the current EC churches to be/remain in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. This was certainly the case with at least the Melkites, who managed to maintain communion far beyond 1054 (let alone 863), possibly as late 1724, and the Ukrainian bishops, who managed the same through at least the Tatar onslaught (1240). Regardless, the affinity for Rome that resulted in the unia is ofter far overinterpreted as a desire to become Latin. Where Rome and Constantinople to be reconciled, rest assured that the EC churches would unite with their counterparts in the Orthodox church, not with the Latins, and schism. With respect to the largest of the Eastern Catholic churches, the Ukrainian, one thing that surely will not happen is a forced union with the Moscow Patriarchate - the recognition of the claims of Moscow by Jeremiah II was one of the issues that helped decide the question of union little more than a decade later.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #139 on: April 12, 2011, 07:43:28 PM »

Welcome to the forum, Mark.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.052 seconds with 34 queries.