Folks, this according to the National Catholic Register:
The Catholic Archbishop of Moscow has given a remarkably upbeat assessment of relations with the Orthodox Church, saying unity between Catholics and Orthodox could be achieved “within a few months.”Commentary. With all due respect to His Excellency Archbishop Pezzi, this is an over-enthusiastic, over-confident, over-optimistic assessment. Not that I am the foremost expert on this issue, but even I can see that all the things that must be in place for this to happen - a Pan-Orthodox Council, for example - are still years away.
In an interview today in Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper, Archbishop Paolo Pezzi said the miracle of reunification “is possible, indeed it has never been so close.” The archbishop added that Catholic-Orthodox reunification, the end of the historic schism that has divided them for a millennium, and spiritual communion between the two churches “could happen soon, within a few months.”
“Basically we were united for a thousand years,” Archbishop Pezzi said. “Then for another thousand we were divided. Now the path to rapprochement is at its peak, and the third millennium of the Church could begin as a sign of unity.” He said there were “no formal obstacles” but that “everything depends on a real desire for communion.”
On the part of the Catholic Church, he added, “the desire is very much alive.”
Archbishop Pezzi, 49, whose proper title is Metropolitan Archbishop of the Mother of God Archdiocese in Moscow, said that now there are “no real obstacles” on the path towards full communion and reunification. On issues of modernity, Catholics and Orthodox Christians feel the same way, he said: “Nothing separates us on bioethics, the family, and the protection of life.”
Also on matters of doctrine, the two churches are essentially in agreement. “There remains the question of papal primacy,” Archbishop Pezzi acknowledged, “and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement.”
Prospects for union with the Orthodox have increased markedly in recent years with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, whose work as a theologian in greatly admired in Orthodox circles. Benedict is also without the burden of the difficult political history between Poland and Russia, which hindered Polish Pope John Paul II from making as much progress as he would have liked regarding Catholic-Orthodox unity.
Relations have also been greatly helped by the election of Patriarch Kirill I earlier this year as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest of the national churches in the Orthodox Church. As the former head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external relations, Kirill met Benedict on several occasions before and after he became Pope, and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is well acquainted with the Roman Curia and with Catholicism.
A Pan-Orthodox Council is the only synodical organ that, as I understand it, can deputize someone to speak on behalf of the whole Orthodox Church in any reunion conversation. Ongoing Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues are just that, conversations between Catholic and Orthodox theologians from various jurisdictionsbut not acting as legates of the Orthodox Church as a whole. Although these theological dialogues are valuable, the bind no one in the Orthodox Church. Only their maximum synod, this "Pan-Orthodox Council" may deputize that kind of power, again as I understand the issue, and before that synod takes place, the Orthodox Church faces a daunting task of intramural housekeeping across its many jurisdictions, some of them are recalcitrant anti-Catholic and of various degrees of contested canonical recognition.
This report is overblown - another "over" word, sorry about that. Although I believe in miracles, I don't think this is one. Let us keep praying for unity between Orthodox and Catholic Christians.
- Simultaneous coverage at the Typika Blog.
Posts
22 comments:
Agreed that the good Archbishop is expressing wishful thinking.
A Pan-Orthodox Council is the only synodical organ that, as I understand it, can deputize someone to speak on behalf of the whole Orthodox Church in any reunion conversation. Ongoing Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues are just that, conversations between Catholic and Orthodox theologians from various jurisdictionsbut not acting as legates of the Orthodox Church as a whole. Although these theological dialogues are valuable, the bind no one in the Orthodox Church. Only their maximum synod, this "Pan-Orthodox Council" may deputize that kind of power...
"Pan-Orthodox Synod" is just a nice way of saying Ecumenical Council without having to thumb a nose at Rome. It also hints at the fact that for a Council to be Ecumenical in the East, it must be 'received' by the Church at large - not just by Rome, not just by New Rome, the Pentarchy, a majority of the local churches, or even by all the bishops. See the letter of the Eastern Patriarchs to Vatican I on this - this also explains why Lyons, Florence and Brest-Litovsk failed from the Orthodox side: the bishops alone aren't The Church.
You are correct that it is only such a Council that could deputize - better, simply accept and recognize - any moves towards union with Rome. It is only such a Council that could speak on behalf of all Orthodoxy, but which must still be 'received' by the Church at large along the way and finally.
Your recognition that "ongoing Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues are just that" is on the money. The late canon lawyer Abp Peter (L'Huillier) would often respond that a given Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop, theologian etc. was simply expressing his own opinion, not that of the Church; often he added that they were stupid and knew nothing of canon law - he was usually right. A Patriarch can say whatever he will, he is speaking for himself and perhaps his office, but the decentralization of Orthodox ecclesiology compartmentalizes heresy and keeps it from taking over the whole Church. It's an old, Christian version of the checks and balances we see in American government; it comes from long experience handling worldly involvement, competing and contentious theologies in close proximity and heretical hierarchs.
These Orthodox-Catholic dialogues are valuable insofar as they 'try on' different ideas of unity and allow 'peer review' by the Church at large. As an example, the extreme ecumenism of the early and mid-20th century EP has been set aside as a non-starter within Orthodoxy. The two lungs theory is also not gaining much traction. Balamand, too, was a failure, following after Lyons and Florence.
Met. Gerasimos of SF has some good, recent thoughts on ecumenism. (Of course, he isn't very good at intra-Orthodox 'ecumenism' but the EP rarely is as the eastern heir to the Roman Imperial mindset that has caused as much bad as good, in my view.)
I think the Abp is right that many of the assumed areas of division are being cleared up, but the real focus of the division, i.e., an infallible papacy, filioque and the role of Tradition, loom that much the larger because of it.
Union with Rome anytime 'soon' will simply unite a rump Orthodoxy to Rome, yet again: another sui juris Church dividing more than uniting.
Or said
[---
"Pan-Orthodox Synod" is just a nice way of saying Ecumenical Council without having to thumb a nose at Rome.
---]
As I understand it (and I could very well be wrong), the Eastern Orthodox can never have an ecumenical council without an emperor calling it, I believe the West was the first to call any kind of council without imperial approval during the last iconoclasm (mostly because the byzantine emperor was an iconoclast). So I am under the impression Pan Orthodox council is probably more accurate if we are talking about the East. They are happy with the number seven.
There hasn't been an EC (from the Orthodox POV) since there was an Emperor, but there isn't agreement that involvement by an Emperor is absolutely necessary. It is simply a historical fact that through the initiative and funding of the Emperors that local and provincial Councils expanded to become worldwide in the face of specific worldwide heresies. In fact, while ECs remain the highest authority in the Orthodox Church, such centralized organs are not considered the primary or normal means of passing on the faith or addressing heresy. The normal vehicle for passing on the faith is fealty to tradition as received, the normal way of addressing heresy is at the diocesan, metropolitan or regional levels.
Many Orthodox will in fact refer to Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils (of the East): the original pro-Photian Council of the 9th Century also accepted by Rome but later changed to a previous anti-Photian Council and a 'Palamite' Council of the 14th Century. The former was ecumenical in the traditional sense: it included Rome and the West. The latter is 'ecumenical' in the 'Pan-Orthodox Synod' sense: it included the whole Church that had not gone into schism, i.e., apart from Rome and the West.
There was confusion on both sides for some time as to how the break in communion came about, both sides simply knew they were out of communion. Then issues began to be raised, but it wasn't clear that all the Orthodox considered the West to be in heresy, or even full schism - there were perhaps simply 'issues'. This was especially true in Antioch. There was also simply a lot of 'benefit of the doubt' given whereby the errors of certain hierarchs and clergy and monastics were not assumed to represent the practice of the entire West. When it became more clear that this was true of the entire West, deference to Western political and military power, meddling by secular powers and the hope that Rome would return to conciliarity and the early faith kept the Church from unanimously deciding on anything with an Ecumenical perspective. Since there were no Orthodox Church-wide theological issues that needed to be addressed with a specifically Ecumenical voice, other terms were used and/or the regular vehicles of the Church were utilized. That is, there is no regular need of a Magesterium in the East: the Church as a whole is the defender of the Church and innovation or change of any kind is frowned upon and accepted as being due to our weakness, even when received.
the real focus of the division, i.e., an infallible papacy, filioque and the role of Tradition, loom that much the larger
Does anyone think the Orthodox are not aware of how "the Vatican" treats the Traditional Catholics, or the wholesale destruction of Latin liturgy over the past 40 years?
In doctrinal talks with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the Vatican will insist that the traditionalist group must accept the validity of Vatican II statements on religious freedom and relations with other faiths, according to Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna.
So, how are the Orthodox going to respond to Schönborn's criticism of the SSPX?
Who is closer to the "orthodox" Orthodox position on "religious freedom and relations with other faiths," Schönborn or the SSPX?
The Orthodox Church has been considering the Latin Liturgy deficient across the board for a number of centuries. The last 40 years have served to prove their point, according to their POV. A hypothethical wholesale return to the Tridentine Mass would merely restore the status quo ante.
As for the SSPX, their extremism have made them ineffective and ultimately will make them irrelevant. I don't even think they're a factor, unlike the Old-Calendarists, who as Traditionalists are more influential in Orthodoxy
-Theo
The question remains relevant (regardless of one's opinion on the relevancy of the SSPX),
Who is closer to the "orthodox" Orthodox position on "religious freedom and relations with other faiths," Schönborn or the SSPX?
There was even high level discussion back in 2005-2007 that, far from being limited to an attempt at rapproachment of schismatic Catholics, Summorum Pontificum actually represented an ecumenical gesture to the Orthodox, to assure them that the West still took its own liturgy seriously. (The lack of a public Papal celebration of the TLM may well have undermined any progress the gesture may have otherwise generated, but this aspect of Summorum Pontificum cannot be denied.)
[---
....the normal way of addressing heresy is at the diocesan, metropolitan or regional levels.
---]
I am not sure it's the normal way in the instance that the patriarch himself is the heretic (i.e. arian, nestorian, monophysite, etc) which happened many times. The church has taken conciliar action in clarifying the faith and issuing anathemas. This happened many times in the early church to combat heresy. Rome also played a very important role in asserting orthodoxy which the west still considers its normal prerogative.
Brian, I believe I addressed this question almost 3 years ago. I still haven't seen anything that would move me to believe that Summorum Pontificum was also a gesture toward the Orthodox because, again, the Orthodox find as many theological faults with the older liturgy as with the "new" one.
Regarding "the lack of a public Papal celebration of the TLM," Pope Benedict surely keeps his own counsel, so my educated guess is that he's committed to the idea that the Mass of Paul VI be the ordinary and therefore "public" expression of the Church's liturgy. I find no fault with that. But, that remains to be seen. Anything can happen.
As for my very negative and at times, emotional opinion about the SSPX, in my defense I will say that it is a gut reaction based on several objective facts, none of which speak well of the SSPX. But that's fodder for another discussion, another time.
-Theo
Its not like you, T., to skirt a direct question:
"Who is closer to the "orthodox" Orthodox position on "religious freedom and relations with other faiths," Schönborn or the SSPX?"
I am sorry, Brian. It's my fault. Every time I see "SSPX" my vision gets blurred and red.
The SSPX is closer to the "orthodox" Orthodox position on interfaith and ecumenism, of course.
And that's equally bad.
-Theo
orrologion wrote:
The Palamite council of 1351 is 'ecumenical' in the 'Pan-Orthodox Synod' sense: it included the whole Church that had not gone into schism, i.e., apart from Rome and the West.
Is this true? Were all the patriarchates (other than Rome) represented in some fashion at the council? A cursory online search has not yielded an answer.
Sorry for the off-topic comment, but I've been puzzling over this for a couple days now.
Friends and Brothers,
It is, as an good student of contemporary ecumenical history would know, one of the basic errors of the followers of the Pope to contend that what divides their confession from the Orthodox Church can be solved in a few months time. Rather, the auto-syneidisis of the laos tou Theou that Catholicism's experience and beliefs are not the Church's and not the Saints' is that which keeps those ecumenist hierarchs at the Phanar and elsewhere from signing yet another false union.
And what does their conscience say? That the problems of the Pope and his followers are not limited to the filioque and primacy/infallibility (still held and confessed), but also include the idea that the Grace of God is created (blasphemy from an Orthodox point of view), that we are *guilty* of the sin of Adam and Eve ("original sin"), that the Mother of God was "immaculately" conceived (i.e. free of the ancestral sin and its effects), that - and here is one that is never discussed in those stuffy dialogue rooms, but is indicative of the state of contemporary catholicism more than most things - the charismatic movement is blessed and inspired by God (the Pope having blessed it and blessing it every year in Rome), that the messages being attributed to "our Lady" in places like Medjegore (sp?) or Damascus or hundreds of other "visions" occuring over the past few decades are not spiritual delusion but of God, that the phenomenon of the "stigmata" from Francis of Assisi down to Padre Pio are consistent with Christian spiritual experience and the witness of the Fathers, etc. etc. Any serious study of contemporary spiritual trends in catholicism as compared to the 2000 year old experience of the Orthodox ascetics and Saints would reveal a huge chasm between the two - certainly not bridgeable without deep repentance.
The conscience of the Orthodox Faithful - as expressed by the Church's Saints in every age, including our own (by such lights as Elder Sophrony of Essex, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Justin Popovich, Saint Nicholai Velimirovich, and others) - is that which does not and will not permit another false union. Until the obstacles stated above are removed and true repentance is experienced, neither individuals nor "churches" will be united.
When will those interested in union with the Orthodox every learn that the voice of the Church is heard first and foremost in Her Saints - not the present Patriarch of Constantinople or representative to the European Union?
Do you want to know what the Orthodox believe and teach and think? Read the lives of the Saints of every age, but especially of this past century. When you do that, you'll clearly see that the sentiments of the above-mentioned "archbishop of Moscow" are at best dreamy, at worst, deceptive.
God bless you all.
P.D.
I believe this last comment deserves its own post. It deserves to be engaged. Any takers?
-Theo
http://www.zenit.org/article-26927?l=english
Hi I'm Chris, I'm a Roman Catholic that has been flirting with Orthodoxy alot lately. In response to P.D.'s statement above, I totally agree. I also believe that reunification will come in chuncks not all at once, and their is one more stumbling block to reunification. For a conciliar decision to be "infalliable" it has to have the consent of the people, and I'm not sure the Orthodox faithful want reunification. They are the one true faith (in their eyes) and we left the faith to follow the papacy.
One the upside if we were to reunite, we need to clear the Russian hurdle first, then the Ecumenical Patriarch, he has far fewer followers. Finally and I think this is huge. The strength of the Fatima vision is problematic. The Russians see this as a Papal attempt to convert their nation away from the Russian faith.
Just some thoughts
Chris
The time is not right for full reunion to happen and it certainly will not happen "in a few months."
We all need to remember that despite recent increasing "good feelings" towards each other between Catholics and Greeks, there is still a lot, A LOT, of heresy in the Greek and Russian Churches that needs desperately to be addressed and fixed before anything can be done.
Case in point, the Greeks deny the real presence in the Eucharist. Now you might be saying "That's not true" oh but hear me out. They acknowledge the real presence in Their Own Eucharist but not in the true Eucharist of the Latin Rite. With this denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Latin Rite it comes down to a question of Objective Reality.
See, if the Greeks are right and Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist in the Latin Rite then they have no business reuniting with us. If they are wrong and Christ really is present in the Eucharist in the Latin Rite then it means that the Greeks are guilty of denying Christ and WE Latins have No Business reuniting with Them.
Besides that let us not forget the other heresies that have crept into the self-described "orthodox" (though in my well formed opinion there is nothing truly orthodox about what they believe or the way they worship.) They allow divorce among not only their lay people but also their clergy in bold face opposition to the commands of the Son of God.
Let us consider their liturgy, it's a mess. Give me the liturgy of the Chaldeans or the Maronites any day before I would ever attend a Byzantine ceremony. At least with the Maronites there is thought, reflection and reverence put into what they are doing. At a byzantine liturgy there is a gross preoccupation with doing anything and everything in the sanctuary but worshiping God. One would think that they learned how to pray from Protestants who aren't even Christian.
Case in point, Greeks refuse, just out and out refuse to kneel before God. What arrogance. Little lesson for any Greeks who happen upon this. Sitting is for learning. Standing is for Prayer. Kneeling is for Worship. Prayer and worship are NOT the same thing. To say or act as if they are is HERESY.
For myself I have great concerns about the validity of the sacraments administered by the Greeks and Russians. I would always have to question if their baptisms, marriages, or Eucharist were valid. That is no way to be in communion with each other. Keep in mind, they allow divorce so their sacrament of marriage must not be valid. They throw part of the bread that they use for the Eucharist in the GARBAGE. Yes you heard me correctly. They consecrate the bread which then means that it is no longer bread but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and then they take part of that and THROW IT AWAY. Is it any wonder that Russians can do nothing but drink themselves into oblivion. Anyone who loves God that attends a Byzantine liturgy should feel sick and disgusted by the completely sacrilegious way that our Lord is treated at the hands of Greeks.
But that's not all. Just a simple cursory look over the history of the Byzantine rite will expose it as being more radical and atheistic than the strangest of protestants or muslims. Contrary to their claim of Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy, they are completely unorthodox in both. They have changed their liturgy so much over the years that it is no wonder their historians never wish to speak of it.
On top of that, when they say "the seven oecumenical councils" they don't really mean seven, they mean eight. They always through in the quintasex council which is NOT One of the Seven OEcumenical councils AT ALL.
To come off of the attacks for a moment, warranted and justified as they may be, I do hope and pray for an eventual reunion to happen. I have taken to praying the Liturgia Horarum specifically for the cause of reunion with the Greeks and Russians. I think that Russia could be the next great Christian nation to lead the troubled world that we live in back to Christ. They could be a shining example of a people's reconversion to Christ that the rest of the Christian world and even the muslim world could follow. However, I do not want reunion just to have it. It can not happen unless it comes with the full meaning of what it is. It can not happen until the east cleans house and comes back to the realization that Christ makes the rules not them.
It would be easy enough to overlook and forgive such unabashed and intentional ignorance of linguistics that caused them to deliberately force themselves to misunderstand the Filioque clause in the creed can we really overlook and forgive the fact that they don't even have a proper sacrament of reconciliation. Can we really overlook the fact that people who know full well should not receive communion not only do receive communion but are encouraged to do so by the priest who should be telling them to get out of the Church.
I know, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and religions with Joe Biden as a member shouldn't talk about being unworthy to receive communion but at least Joe has been warned to stay away instead of encouraged to step right up.
When we look at all things in an objective, will informed and historical light it seems far more likely that reunion with the Assyrian Church of the East will happen before any sort of reunion with the Greeks and Russians. The Assyrian Church has renounced all their former heresies and if not for a small inner church political power struggle, there is nothing stopping full communion happening today.
But instead Catholics are fixated on reunion with Greeks and Russians. Why? Is it because they are European? Why aren't we trying so hard to have reunion with the Ethiopians? Oh yah, the Ethiopians have a bit of heresy don't they with the whole "one will" thing. Ok I get that but the Greeks throw Jesus in the trash can and that to me is much worse. At least I can say that the Ethiopians take their liturgy seriously.
Greeks and Russians, please, if you love God AT ALL, I beg you to reform yourselves. Return to your earlier form. I am not asking you to try to be modern or hip or whatever. I am asking to roll back the clock and return to the way you were before Iconocasm. You know you have things wrong. You know that Christ established the Papacy. If you love Christ and are in any way thankful for what he did for you on the cross then reform yourselves. Clean house and the let's have reunion. Remember, Christ said "be Perfect" and right now you are far from it. That is not to say that the Latin Rite doesn't have some of its own house cleaning to do but as you can see we are in the process of cleaning house while you are still in denial. START CLEANING HOUSE; If not for reunion then for your soul. You aren't going to live forever you know.
One last request, please, please I beg you from the bottom of my heart STOP THROWING JESUS IN THE GARBAGE!!!!!!
A few points:
if the Greeks are right and Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist in the Latin Rite then they have no business reuniting with us.
It is the generally accepted Orthodox view that the RCC is in schism from the Church and therefore without at least the fullness of grace. The RCC eucharist is therefore not the Eucharist, but it would become the Eucharist once they had reunited with the Church.
Of course, issues of reunion, schism, heresy, etc. have often dealt with this in a variety of ways over the centuries. Sometimes the schismatic or heretical bodies' Orders and Sacraments were received, sometimes they were not.
They allow divorce among not only their lay people but also their clergy...
Divorce was allowed in the eastern churches even before the schism with Rome out of economia. Only the first marriage ceremony is properly defined as marriage, the second and third marriage services are increasingly penitent in tone and various parts of the sacramental action are removed. "Man for the sabbath" and all.
Canonically and normally, clergy are not allowed to divorce and remain clergy. See the recent action of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Depending on the situation and whether the clergyman was at fault in any way, or not, a bishop may allow the priest to remain in Orders, again, out of economia.
Greeks refuse, just out and out refuse to kneel before God.
This is patently false. My Greek church kneels every Sunday. In point of fact, there is no tradition of kneeling in the Orthodox church; the tradition is to prostrate completely in worship, all the way to the floor with one's head and back up. Again, this is an ancient practice of the eastern churches. The distinction you make between sitting, standing and kneeling seems rather arbitrary and is likely either a pious sentiment or a local tradition of the West.
They throw part of the bread that they use for the Eucharist in the GARBAGE.
This is not true.
You may be referring to the portion of the prosphora (offerings) out of which the consecrated bread is cut prior to consecration. The portion is called the Lamb and is the only bread consecrated. The remaining portion of the offerings was never consecrated and is normally cut up and distributed to the people as antidoron ("instead of the gifts") - some churches may throw away unused portions of this. However, it is the official tradition that antidoron itself is not to be received without fasting and preparation and is to be consumed fully and treated with respect as it is some sense 'blessed' coming from the same loaf as the consecrated Lamb. Slavs tend to be more reverent with the antidoron than Greeks.
They have changed their liturgy so much over the years...
The Byzantine Rite has been extremely 'stable' since the 9th century, though additional development has taken place around the edges.
I would suggest looking at a history of the rites used under the Roman church and in its territories over its long centuries before throwing around this argument.
That's a start. Given the fact that the RCC and the Pope has accepted the Byzantine Rite as a fully 'Catholic' Rite, I would perhaps offer your criticisms in a more gracious tone.
I have to agree with my brother Orrologion too. I've been right there at the altar behind the iconostasis when the elements are consecrated. I testify that no particle of the consecrated elements end up in the garbage. I don't know of any Orthodox who deny the Real Presence nor do I find any basis to deny the Presence in the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church I once attended had kneelers; those that don't have kneelers - or even pews - do so to allow for full prostrations.
Also, calling the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom "a mess" strikes me as unfair, and untrue.
I expected Orthodox like Panagiotis to come out and have their say, but I guess I should've expected an equally tortuous retort from a Catholic brother. I think that neither Panagiotis nor our anonymous Catholic commenter have allowed for enough charity in their hearts to look at each other dispassionately.
-Theo
...when they say "the seven oecumenical councils" they don't really mean seven, they mean eight. They always through in the quintasex council which is NOT One of the Seven OEcumenical councils AT ALL.
The Quinisext (Fifth-Sixth) Council (aka Trullan Council or Council in Trullo) is, at the very least, a binding council on the eastern churches. As to whether it is Ecumenical, I believe the West accepted it when it accepted the Seventh EC, which accepted the Quinisext as part of the Sixth EC. (I'm working from memory here, this should be confirmed in its particulars). The Fifth and Sixth ECs never provided canons dealing with various practical and doctrinal issues, so this Council was called to fill in that void.
Actually, when Orthodox talk about an Eighth EC they are talking about the Photian Council that both East and West agreed to (the West had a previous Photian Council that condemned Photius and a later one that backed out of their agreement and returned to the previous anti-Photian Council). Some Orthodox will also refer to a Ninth EC - one or all of the Palamite Councils in the 14th Century.
...unabashed and intentional ignorance of linguistics that caused them to deliberately force themselves to misunderstand the Filioque clause in the creed...
This issue is far over the pay grade of just about everyone, east and west, especially when the tortured history of mutual linguistic misunderstanding and obfuscation (accidental and partisan) is added to the mix. The simplest issue is that the Orthodox (and, at one time, the Pope of Rome) believed it impossible to add or subtract to the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Setting the theology assumed by each for the moment, the filioque is an addition to the Creed - though it was often not realized in the West.
...they don't even have a proper sacrament of reconciliation.
Not sure what you're getting at here. There are two forms of absolution in the Orthodox Church - the Russian is much like the Catholic, the Greek is its own. If you are talking about a lack of specificity regarding penance, etc. as the 'required' bits of Confession beyond confession and absolution, then you may want to look into when such specificity was enunciated in the West and accepted everywhere as 'required'.
The 'lesser' Sacraments developed later and in various ways across the Christian world, so it is unsurprising that a particularly Western form developed and was adopted as s standard in isolation from the Eastern churches. Such differences simply are a fact of Church history - probably within the sui generis churches in communion with Rome, as well.
Catholics are fixated on reunion with Greeks and Russians. Why?
Well, they all share the full dogmatic heritage of the first seven ecumenical councils. Whatever Non-Chalcedonians and Non-Ephesians may say they believe, their bishops have been reticent to accept the later Councils. Dogmatically, Rome and Constantinople are still far closer to each other in faith.
Return to your earlier form.
The Orthodox ask the same of Rome, and thus we are where we are.
Actually, the Pope has said that reunion with the Orthodox would require them to accept the papacy in the form it existed in the first millenium, no more. This, of course, implies, that the papacy has become something other than it was in the first millenium of the Church.
Those kinds of comments seem calculated to scare off those Orthodox who are convinced that ecumenism is a heresy, or even those (like me) who suspect that it can be in some circumstances.
There are far too many unresoved issues and theological differences that need to be sorted out before reunion becomes even a distant prospect. These go way beyond Papal infallibility and the Filioque. As someone once said:
The East was not influenced by Augustine: its anthropology is different from that of the West.
The East was not influenced by Anselm: its soteriology is different from that of the West.
The East was not incluenced by Aquinas: its methodology is different from that of the West.
I've put together a list of links to some blog posts on the topic that may be interesting.
Post a Comment