The results of the 2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Orthodox-Catholic Reunion
I. Executive Summary
“Sympathetic skepticism” and unwavering faithfulness to Orthodox Tradition aptly describe the attitudes, some positive, some negative that the 2010 Orthodox Lay People Survey recorded from Orthodox respondents when faced with the prospect of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Although most respondents were remarkably open to exploring reconciliation and even for receiving a Council’s decision authorizing and enabling reunion, Orthodox respondents envisioned reunion only along strictly Orthodox theological lines, leaving little room for dogmatic diversity and with a significantly redefined notion of Roman Papal Primacy if one is to be retained at all. Despite exhaustive mutual consultation and general councils, reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches may not take place at the grassroots, where lay Orthodox Christians reject membership within the reconciled Churches, making reconciliation a mere canonical formality without practical consequences and real liturgical communion between the Churches.
II. Origin and Nature of the Survey
The 2010 Orthodox Lay People Survey arose solely out of my personal curiosity and initiative. The web-based survey consisted of 18 questions (14 diagnostic and 4 quality control questions) targeted adult (18 years and older) Orthodox lay men and women open to respondents from all countries and jurisdictions for two weeks. At closing time, the survey had collected input from 105 respondents from all Orthodox jurisdictions and worldwide geographical regions. However, 90 percent of the respondents were located in North America (including Mexico and the Caribbean). Male respondents outnumbered female 7 to 1, (88 to 12 percent) while 74 respondents reported being older than 45 years of age.
III. Findings
Orthodox Respondents are Generally Open to the Idea of Catholic-Orthodox Reunion.
• 63 percent of respondents favored reestablishing full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
• 66 percent ascribed some or great importance to Orthodox-Catholic reunion.
• 76 percent would support a decision by a Pan-Orthodox Council to explore reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.
• 57 percent would support a decision by a Pan-Orthodox Council approving reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.
• 60 percent would support a decision by a joint “Grand Council” of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches approving and enabling communion.
Orthodox Respondents are More Likely to Accept Reunion Along Orthodox Lines.
• 52 percent of respondents would accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome if his primacy is defined strictly according to Orthodox tenets; 26 percent would accept the Roman Primacy after a mutually satisfactory definition is reached by Catholic and Orthodox in a Reunion Council.
• 44 percent declared themselves unlikely to support a common dogmatic declaration that is not in agreement with Orthodox Tradition; 40 percent would accept only those Catholic dogmas that are fully compatible with Orthodoxy; 16 percent would be likely to accept a common dogmatic declaration promulgated by a Reunion Council; and 27 percent would accept dogmatic diversity in the reunited Church as long as Roman Catholic dogmas are not binding in the East.
Sizeable minorities oppose any reunion prior to any discussions, or one that does not result in total Catholic theological capitulation to Orthodox Tradition.
• 39 percent of all Orthodox respondents did not favor reunion with the Catholic Church.
• 34 percent saw as unimportant the restoration of communion between the Churches.
• 24 percent would not support the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council authorizing an exploration of Catholic-Orthodox reunion.
• 43 percent would not support the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council approving reunion.
• 40 percent would not support the determination of a joint “Grand Council” of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches approving and enabling full communion.
• 26 percent would not accept the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, however defined, under any circumstance.
Differences in current liturgical usage, language, not a determinant factor
• 49 percent of all Orthodox respondents favored the retention of the ordinary form of the Latin Liturgy as long as it is brought in line with Orthodox Tradition; 12 percent saw nothing wrong with the present ordinary form of the Roman Mass.
• 26 percent stated that only the extraordinary form, in other words, the “Traditional Latin Mass” should be the accepted liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church after reunion.
• 13 percent would ditch the entire Latin Rite and would force the Roman Catholic Church to use a standard Byzantine Liturgy in Latin instead.
In the end, Orthodox respondents remained skeptical or suspicious of Orthodox-Catholic reunion
• 57 percent of all respondents believe that Orthodox-Catholic reunion is not in the best interest of the Orthodox Churches, despite the fact that 63 percent of the respondents favored unqualified reunion at the beginning of the survey.
IV. Brief Discussion
Despite existing good will and openness to the notion of reunion, and within the strict limitations and exceptions that will be discussed below, Catholics and Orthodox leaders should be prepared to see a loss of between 30 to 40 percent of committed, knowledgeable Orthodox lay people if reunion were to occur today. The numbers of dissenter could double in numbers if reunion does not occur strictly in accordance to Orthodox Tradition.
Orthodox and Catholics leaders must also be aware that conciliar consultation whether intramurally between the Orthodox Churches or between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, will not result necessarily in the healing of the schism. Orthodox Christians are conditioned by their Tradition to not accept conciliar decisions without question, nor do they conceive of such councils as binding and ecumenical without general reception of their teaching by the whole Church, and that takes time. A tradition of dissent from and even of condemning conciliar agreements that depart from Eastern Orthodoxy has been common currency in the Orthodox Churches for centuries. Many will invoke this tradition to support their rejection of any reunion council despite a substantive agreement on all significant issues. In other words, reunion is far from certain, even if all consultation mechanisms are exhausted, unless lay Orthodox Christians are convinced that reunion would be in the best interest of their Churches, and more importantly, that such a union does not do violence to their faith.
V. Limitations and Strengths of this Survey
This survey is not scientifically descriptive of the opinion of all Orthodox lay people worldwide. Limiting the information collection solely to a web-based document distorted the pool of potential respondents to middle-aged to mature males located in North America. Other factors, such as Internet access and conversant knowledge about Orthodox and Catholic issues may have reduced the potential pool of respondents even further. Accessibility due to the survey being in English may have been another major limiting factor in decreasing the number of potential respondents.
The margin of error of this survey is approximately ±10 percent, whether the survey is taken to represent opinions in North America – specifically within the United States – or the world, although the margin of error is more meaningful in the United States for a population of approximately 1.4 million Orthodox faithful than for 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. This is due to both the size of the sample, the geographical distribution of the respondents across the world, and lack of significant representations from Orthodox lay faithful located outside North America.
Nevertheless, the opinions of 105 educated Orthodox, North American respondents are very valuable, since these are representative of a portion of Orthodox believers in one of the most influential regions of the world for Orthodoxy. For it is here in North America where most inter-church interaction takes place and where the most practical aspects of reunion would become visible. Moreover, 105 educated Orthodox lay men and women, many of whom may be converts to Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church of from Protestantism, may exert considerable influence over other Orthodox Christians and may sway them in favor or against reunion with the Catholic Church.
VI. Conclusion: Challenges and Convergences
Engaging lay Orthodox Christians, men and women, educated or not, is critical to the success of Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation and reunion. Lay Orthodox Christians, particularly those who are educated on their faith and on the issues, will not accept passively the decisions of any reunion Church Council, however exalted, that approves and enables reunion between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. Since these lay Orthodox Christians are also influential among family, friends, and perhaps even in their congregations, it is imperative that they be engaged in any process of reconciliation or reunion. Otherwise, reconciliation between the Churches will become a mere formality without further transcendence and without the Orthodox Christifideles laici seeing themselves as Eucharistic brethren with their Latin counterparts.
A redefinition of the nature and scope of the Roman Primacy is a principal concern for lay Orthodox Christians. If anything, the way that the Roman Catholic Church sees the powers and prerogatives of the Pope represent a grave stumbling block toward reunion. The recent document published by the members of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation openly acknowledges that,
It seems to be no exaggeration, in fact, to say that the root obstacle preventing the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from growing steadily towards sacramental and practical unity has been, and continues to be, the role that the bishop of Rome plays in the worldwide Catholic communion. While for Catholics, maintaining communion in faith and sacraments with the bishop of Rome is considered a necessary criterion for being considered Church in the full sense, for Orthodox, as well as for Protestants, it is precisely the pope’s historic claims to authority in teaching and Church life that are most at variance with the image of the Church presented to us in the New Testament and in early Christian writings.
This survey confirms their insight. It is also my prayerful hope that this survey also contributes to a solution that would realize the Lord’s words in his priestly prayer: ut unum sint, that we may all be one.
- Download a PDF version of this survey results that includes bar graphs and charts from here.
- Join parallel discussions on the following boards:
Posts
42 comments:
"Lay Orthodox Christians, particularly those who are educated on their faith and on the issues, will not accept passively the decisions of any reunion Church Council, however exalted"
This is a crucial insight and could be said of lay Catholics as well (regarding other issues).
The care that you are obviously taking and asking the Church(s) to take here, would be well taken in many matters.
This is an interesting survey, but there is (at least) one wrong conclusion made by the author.
Namely, how on Earth do you imagine that "educated" Orthodox converts from the "influential" North America can affect the attitude of us, cradle Orthodox Christians in our lands, where we have been living for centuries? How do you imagine to affect us - Russians, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars, Romanians, Arabs, who don't give a dim about the American values, "influence" and "importance"?
Regards,
Orthodoxlurker
Ortho-Lurker:
You do make a good point. You've pointed out my American bias. Guilty as charged.
In my defense, I will say this: most Orthodox-Catholic dialogues occur here. Here, you may find Catholics and Orthodox on the same side of many of Culture of Life issues. Here, it is common to see Orthodox Christians receiving communion in a Catholic Church because we have no prohibition on that regard. Finally, ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate where do they get a lot of their operational funds and they will reply "from America." The Vatican contributes too, btw.
So...there's an argument for influence from America here, whether you like it or not. You need to be aware of this.
Slava Isusu Christu!
-Theo
Dear Theo,
I might have been more prudent to ask Ortho-Lurker what he thinks and how he perceives the attitudes of people closest to him and who they are and why they think the way they do, rather than simply presuming the negative and jumping all over him to tell him that he is insignificant. Your reply to him indicates to me that you do not know Orthodoxy quite as well as you might need to do so, yet.
I am interested to hear Orthodox Lurkers view, dim or otherwise.
M.
Greetings Elijah:
It never crossed my mind to consider what he said, or his person, "insignificant." Rather, by pointing first to my American bias I attempted to highlight his/her own.
We are what we are. If we're conscientious Christians this should be our first realization. We tend to confuse what we are with what we need to become, forgetting that we're always in the process of becoming.
Specifically, will I always be knowledgable of Orthodoxy? According to whose standard? It seems to me that the bar keeps rising higher and higher and that I will never gain the mythical state of knowledge about Orthodoxy that will make me "respectable" to some Orthodox Christians. So, I've given up on that. I was Orthodox for 4 years. That will have to suffice.
We are not as "ideal" and "pure" as we think ourselves to be, whether we be Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestants. I recognize I argue forcefully, but humiliating people or institutions when I want to build bridges is simply not my style. I am sorry if I gave that impression.
Yours in Christ,
-Theo
@Teofilo
I am aware that one of the reasons for reducing Ecumenical Patriarchate into a puppet is her accepance of funding from Vatican and U.S.Government.
I am also aware that what you explicitly, and perhaps naively, wrote is actually a plan laid down by Vatican II.
I have nothing to tell you except 'No passaran'.
Accept my final kind regards.
Orthodoxlurker
Thank you for your final remarks OrthoLurker.
I just want to clarify that the money from America doesn't come from the U.S. Government, it comes from the Orthodox jurisdictions here, and ultimately, from the Orthodox people.
There rest of your opinion, well, it's your appreciation and I understand why you hold it.
Thank you for sharing it here.
-Theo
Ortho-lurker says:
"I am aware that one of the reasons for reducing Ecumenical Patriarchate into a puppet is her accepance of funding from Vatican and U.S.Government."
It seems to me that the Lurker has missed the fact that money from the Vatican flows into Russia and Slavic lands also. Seems that the Axe doesn't grind quite as fine when it is your own being ground.
EM
Theo says:
"Specifically, will I always be knowledgable of Orthodoxy? According to whose standard? It seems to me that the bar keeps rising higher and higher and that I will never gain the mythical state of knowledge about Orthodoxy that will make me "respectable" to some Orthodox Christians. So, I've given up on that. I was Orthodox for 4 years. That will have to suffice."
Thank you for the additional info. I do understand your approach and better now than before. However I still would have liked to have seen the question first...just out of curiosity if nothing else!
EM
I'm actually both surprised and somewhat impressed by the results of this poll. I actually thought that the Orthodox who voted would have been much more against any sort of union with Rome.
Thank you Elijamaria for your comments. I really appreciate your input.
Brother Zolzemli, the Orthodox seem to be surprised that so many are open to the idea of reconciliation. I find it very surprising that my Orthodox brethren see the glass half-full. I see it half empty. To me, this is a thoroughly negative report. Every single item on reconciliation with Rome is conditional and the conditions are stiff.
I honestly don't get the observation.
-Theo
Theo
...the Orthodox seem to be surprised that so many are open to the idea of reconciliation...
Perhaps some. If Rome can truly return to the church she was before the eighth century then there is no need for a division. There would be no primacy issue, filioque, immaculate conception, etc..
Healing the schism which started more than a thousand years ago would be truly miraculous and wonderful, but it has to be real otherwise it's just another false union. The flaw in your survey is that it reads like a Western style public opinion poll and the evaluation treats the Orthodox like a sociological study.
Popular opinion has nothing to do with it. Truth cannot be trampled on just because we don't like it. Reality cannot be ignored just because we don't want to deal with it. Since you say you were an Orthodox Christian for four years then you should know this already. These "stiff" demands are not made out of some sort of pettiness or chauvinism.
It would have been more productive to outline the theological reasons for why there is a division between the Churches. Understanding that there is a lot of historical bad blood but that can be left for another day. Then evaluate whether an honest argument can be made from pre-eighth century. Identify where there is a continuity and were there is a discontinuity.
Orthodox Christianity does not permit its faithful to receive Holy Communion in non-Orthodox communities, whether they be Roman Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. Hence, while Roman Catholicism may extend Eucharistic hospitality to Orthodox Christians, it does not mean that Orthodox Christians are permitted to accept such hospitality.
For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.
This is a very interesting survey, and it confirms many of my own perceptions of the issue.
I did not take the poll -- did you have a way of determining if respondents were former Roman Catholics? That might throw an interesting light on the results.
As I see it, there is little interest from Orthodox laity on unity because they just do not have the incentive to unite with an institution that has the myriad of problems that the RCC has, many of which they have experienced first-hand. Why give up their doctrinal peace-of-mind for the chaos that is still echoing around the world in the wake of Vatican II?
If the Roman Catholic Church needs Orthodoxy so much, then it should become Orthodox. Most Orthodox do not see anything to be gained from Rome.
@fadedmirror:
I did not take the poll -- did you have a way of determining if respondents were former Roman Catholics? That might throw an interesting light on the results.
I thought about it but concluded that asking such a question would've thrown the survey out of focus and spooked some respondents. So no, there's no way to find that out with the current data.
As I see it, there is little interest from Orthodox laity on unity because they just do not have the incentive to unite with an institution that has the myriad of problems that the RCC has, many of which they have experienced first-hand. Why give up their doctrinal peace-of-mind for the chaos that is still echoing around the world in the wake of Vatican II?
There's some truth is what you say, but methinks that Orthodoxy is also susceptible to deconstruction along some lines.
If the Roman Catholic Church needs Orthodoxy so much, then it should become Orthodox. Most Orthodox do not see anything to be gained from Rome.
The survey data supports both these statements, of course.
But the first statement, you know, it's a zero sum, eh? We have to renounce everything in order to gain "the peace of mind" of Orthodoxy, to gain a kind of subjective peace that may not depend on a full appreciation of Orthodox, Byzantine, and Slavic history, where Orthodox ideals pretty much remain ideals and the rest have been turned into pretty legends now set up as idyllic and ideal.
I think that if we look close enough, we will find in the history of the Orthodox Church the same mist of diabolical confusion that exists in every place where man has decided to follow Jesus is Lord.
Yours in Christ,
-Theo
I grow weary of the Orthodox constantly throwing stones about liturgical abuse in the Catholic Church. I also grow weary of their apparent lackadaisical attitude towards unity. The reason the Catholic Church wants unity so bad is because Christ wanted unity so bad. That should be simple enough.
And perhaps the Orthodox should stop lecturing anyone about orthodoxy since they have divorce and remarriage and various concessions for contraception. These two things are far worse than any perceived problems in the Western Church. We can revive the liturgy (and we are), but can the Orthodox reverse the slippery slope of contraception and divorce and remarriage? Not without Rome.
The East needs the West a lot more than the West needs the East, yet the West reaches out and only ever seems to get their hand slapped.
An interesting survey! The data on liturgical issues is particularly shocking to me considering the closeness of the Novus Ordo to what passes for worship in the Protestant world. As an Orthodox Christian I could not accept unia with Rome (if I did, then I would be a Byzantine Catholic already), but I would have a hard time accepting it with a dogmatically Orthodox Rome that didn't see the pressing need for its return to the traditional Roman Rite and the other Western Rites that survived until Vatican II.
Greetings Jon Marc:
Thank you for your comments.
It was surprising to me as well. I expected a larger break out in favor of the TLM or of totally "ditching" the often called "flawed" and "graceless" Roman liturgy. For whatever reasons, it didn't break out that way.
-Theo
"The East needs the West a lot more than the West needs the East, yet the West reaches out and only ever seems to get their hand slapped."
I hear this over and over, yet I fail to see what the East is looking to gain from the West. What is it that the East is turning to the West to obtain?
@fadedmirror
"What is it that the East is turning to the West to obtain?"
If your stance is typical/common in the East, then that explains the current divide. If Christians seek to "gain" things from others, then there is no hope of unity. The same is true for a family. If the husband and wife are looking to gain from each other, then their marriage will fail quickly.
But alas, the main charge against the West is that it has lost its way liturgically. Which there's an argument to be made there, the TLM is experiencing a resurgence and the upcoming modifications to the NO will make a big difference in the liturgical practices in the West.
Liturgy can be changed and healed as we are seeing. The West will recover its liturgy in time. What is not easily healed is the major doctrinal abandonment going on in the East. If the East stands to gain anything, it will be in the form of returning to foundational doctrinal obedience instead of the slippery slope of appeasing secular demands that it's currently going through.
The West stands to gain a lot less from the East, yet unity is paramount and obligated by Christ to all Christians. The West seeks to follow Christ until it hurts (constant rejection by the East). Yet the East does not seem to desire unity at all and rejects Christ in this regards.
"If the East stands to gain anything, it will be in the form of returning to foundational doctrinal obedience instead of the slippery slope of appeasing secular demands that it's currently going through."
Interesting. What instances of "appeasing secular demands" do you find in the East versus the West?
Liturgical reform aside, I see the strong legalistic approach to theology, morals, and governance as the prime sticking point between East and West, from the notion of the papacy on down. The two cultures just do not mesh. This will need to change before unity is anything but words on a piece of paper.
I see the strong legalistic approach to theology, morals, and governance....
I'm going to butt in.
"Strong" as compared to what? Weak? Medium? "Just right"? What's the standard?
Same think with "legalistic". How is our approach "too much." As compared to what? What's the standard?
One last question: is even asking these questions, is even asking for this kind of precision, "bad"?
-Theo
"One last question: is even asking these questions, is even asking for this kind of precision, "bad"?"
Not at all. We will never learn to talk to each other if we can't learn each others' language and patterns of thought. IMHO most of the damage that has been done so far is caused by one side reading its desires into statements made by the other side and running away with them.
Now, please note that this is all the personal opinion of one sinful convert to Orthodoxy, so it should in no way be taken as representative of Orthodoxy as a whole or even within the USA.
As I see it, the Roman Catholic Church has a strong bent towards defining and codifying everything under the sun, resulting in a faith that is more about parsing rules than relating to the Holy Trinity. I hear constantly from my Catholic friends as to whether they have fulfilled a Sunday or fasting obligation or merited an indulgence of grace. People on the Internet will refer to the Catechism rulebook by paragraph number to justify one action over another. This is a foreign way of thinking to Orthodoxy. It seems that within Roman Catholicism, God becomes a supernatural contract lawyer, ready to rake someone over the coals over some subparagraph or other.
This is the sort of thinking that I never want to see invade Orthodoxy. It took me years to get past the idea that God had created me to walk some sort of cosmic tightrope instead of lovingly setting up a structure for my spiritual growth and protection. I still constantly fail to grow as I should, but in consultation with my priest as my spiritual father I can acknowledge my failings and work on ways to continue the long process of working out my salvation -- not by following hard and fast rules, but by persevering in a program of spiritual growth and development prescribed for me by the holy men and women who have gone on before.
Laying out a hard and fast, cut and dry set of rules and regulations is antithetical to the nature of spiritual development in Orthodoxy. We have no Catechism -- separating theology from the spiritual life of the one who wrote it down just doesn't make sense. All theology is to serve to lead the heart closer to God. In the case that it doesn't, it should be avoided, let it instead lead us into prelest, or the sin of spiritual pride in thinking that we know more about God than we actually do.
I've probably written way too much here -- I hope you find it useful anyway. Please forgive any offense I may have caused with my too many words. If you might remember me and my family in your prayers, I would greatly appreciate it.
One last question: is even asking these questions, is even asking for this kind of precision, "bad"?
Not at all. We will never learn one anothers' language and patterns of thought unless we ask clarifying questions. Too much damage has been done by one side projecting their own desires into a statement by the other side and running away with it.
I wrote a really long answer to your question, but I'm afraid that the great Web monster just ate it. If you didn't get it, let me know and I'll see if I can reconstruct my over-winded explanation of what I meant with my comments.
fadedmirror wrote "What instances of 'appeasing secular demands' do you find in the East versus the West?"
* Divorce and remarriage
* Contraception
* Nationalism (no strong unity among national Orthodox churches)
* No strong official condemnation of abortion (that I could find -- my quick google searching revealed opposition, but no strong doctrinal statement)
Just to name a few. I find it odd that you argue about a loose view of the power of the Church on one hand, and then take such a strong view of a unified liturgy. In the West, we have a strong theological, moral, and discipline unity and a loose liturgical view (several rites, the Latin rite having been watered down but now being mostly corrected in the recent changes -- plus the TLM regaining ground rapidly)
I'm not sure what you take exception to regarding divorce and remarriage, since the Catholic and Orthodox churches follow their own understandings of the Sacrament of Marriage to the same practical conclusion. In Roman Catholicism (please correct me where I am wrong), a failed marriage is brought before a Tribunal. Since the Sacrament is considered to be conferred on the couple by the couple, then the Tribunal looks for "breach of contract" behavior which may prove that the marriage was invalid for some reason, then divorce and remarriage is permitted.
In Orthodoxy, a failed marriage is brought before an ecclesiastical court. Since the Sacrament of Marriage is considered to be conferred upon the couple by the Church, then it is the perogative of the court to determine that the grace of the Sacrament was rejected at some point, therefore the union is pronounced dissolved. The net effect is the same -- the marriage is ended, and both parties are free to remarry. However, in the Orthodox Church, one is only allowed to be married three times during one's life, even due to the death of a spouse. The wedding ceremony for a second marriage is much more penitential in tone, recognizing the gravity of the person's life history.
Regarding contraception, I wish that the Orthodox hierarchs were more outspoken regarding abortifacients, so I rely quite a bit on Roman Catholic research. However, noting that the use of contraception by Roman Catholics is the same as that of the general public does indicate that promulgation of Humanae Vitae is not exactly a success story. And, as you saw, abortion is condemned within Orthodoxy. Doctrinal statements are made on a jurisdictional basis, so naturally you won't find one binding on all Orthodox.
The issue of nationalism is an issue in countries where there are overlapping jurisdictions, but this is an accident of history and is actively being worked out on the administrative and grassroots level. I dare say that this will take place before meangingful liturgical reform becomes effective in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA.
Unified liturgy is vital to Orthodoxy because the Orthodox really live "Lex orandi, lex credendi". The Liturgy is our basis for all theology, hagiography, and history. The Orthodox need no Catechism because we can refer back to the prayers of the Liturgy. It is the bedrock of our collective understanding of the Faith. We don't mess with it. Ever.
Some Orthodox translate the loose conformity of liturgy in the West to mean an indifference for doctrinal purity. The many innovations in Western theology and practice bear this out. So, they become very defensive when the idea of unity is brought up -- compromising on Liturgy is literally compromising on the Faith. It simply isn't done.
So again, I don't see what sacramental union would add to Orthodox faith or praxis. Just doing it for the sake of doing it would be destructive to the Orthodox worldview, so any artificial union would be quickly rejected on the grassroots level.
I coulnd't stop laughing for a while after reading Chad Myers comments - he had first diagnosed "the problems" in Orthodoxy, and subsequently did a google search to prove his findings.
Re.: divorce and remarriage, we have been applying exactly the same rules on it as from about 7th century. Rome was also doing it while she was with us, but amended it several times after she departed. Now, the fact that we have never amended this rules is "a problem" for Chad. LOL.
Re.: contraception - the same as above - it has always had the same treatment.
Re.: nationalism and "lack of unity" - the guy obviously has no clue what he is talking about, and I am not the one to offer intelligence to him.
Re.: no strong "official" condemnation of abortion - we don't have "official" condemnation of the grave sins (for that matter, neither of "petty" ones). We don't need it. It doesn't change. The God's commandments doesn't need "official" condemnations over and over again. They have been given once and they don't change. They also don't need "reinforcement" of fallible humans.
The prejudice and ignorance of rank and file Roman Catholics is not the reason why we are weary of you, it's a proof of devastating consequences of separation from the Church of Roman Pontiff and his religious community. We would accept your return, but you are obviously still infected and prone to spread the disease on us, so the care should be taken in that regard.
Unless you explicitly spat on heresy filiioque AND THE UNDERLYING THEOLOGY, as well as on Papal heresy, we would "gain" from "reunion" about as much as we would "gain" from a lung cancer.
Judging by the above, we also have to recognize that mocking laughter and pharisaic self-righteousness are also reasons for our separation.
Mocking laughter and pharisaic self-righteousness abound in hell.
-Theo
I will take that from Theofilo as true. He is bound to know what he is talking about when he speaks about hell.
You truly are a sick soul, Lurker. You sadden me.
-Theo
I'm sad to say that the most uncharitable discussions I've ever witnessed between two Christians always involved an Orthodox on one side.
I wish I understood why there is so much vitriol and anger. From my limited study of the history of the Great Schism, it sounds like it was founded in vitriol and anger and so has always had those traits.
Similar to how Protestantism was founded in rebellion and rejection of authority and still always bears those traits.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is the true *Universal* Church in all senses (nations, races, backgrounds, liturgies, etc). People are drawn to its stands against the cultural slippery slope and how it stands firm against the temptation to allow divorce and remarriage (even limited to 3 times), contraception, abortion, etc.
I will be the first to apologise for the tenor of the reply from the Anonomous Orthodox poster. I hope that it is obvious that this is not an example of the humility that Orthodoxy teaches.
I still would like to hear a reply from Mr Myers as to how he sees the Roman Catholic practice of annulments differing from the Orthodox economia of divorce and how sacramental union would improve the Orthodox practice.
@fadedmirror:
A declaration of nullity is not a "Catholic Divorce." It is an examination of the marriage to determine if there was any sacramental marriage there in the first place. There are many cases where it is determined that a married couple did indeed have a valid, sacramental marriage and, even though they are civilly divorced, are still considered married in the eyes of God and the Church and are not free to remarry under the penalty of adultery.
If it is discovered that, indeed, a valid, sacramental marriage did NOT happen, then the couple have been living unchastely and have been committing the sin of fornication under the appearance of marital union and must repent, confess, and receive absolution.
From what I have read (and I admit I'm no scholar on the subject), The Orthodox seem have an incorrect translation or understanding of what Christ was talking about in Mathew 19:9. It is commonly translated that Christ says "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The Greek word used for "marital unfaithfulness" is πορνείᾳ "porniea" means something closer to "fornication". How can a married person commit fornication? They can if they were never really married in the first place.
A better English translation might be:
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.
Since Marriage/Matrimony is a Sacrament, it must be entered into with free will and full knowledge and faith with proper form and matter by eligible recipients.
If someone attempted Marriage against their will, with misconceived notions about how marriage works and its purpose, did not have proper faith in the Sacrament, the form or matter wasn't correct, or they weren't eligible, then the marriage is "unlawful" and so isn't really a marriage.
A declaration of nullity recognizes this fact -- but only if the attempted marriage was, in fact, invalid.
It is not a divorce. A valid, sacramental marriage is permanent until death of one or both of the spouses. Only then is a Catholic free to remarry.
As I understand it, this is quite different from what Orthodox believe w/r/t to divorce and remarriage.
Well, I am the first to admit to not being much of a scholar on Sacramental Marriage, but the main difference as I see it is that while the Roman Catholic theology sees marriage as a contract that the couple bestows upon each other, Orthodox theology sees marriage as a union that it declares upon the couple. So, there is no real place in Orthodoxy for an "invalid" marriage according to personal intent or misconceptions. A failed marriage is the Church's fault in part (by pronouncing what could not be), and a dissolution of the Sacrament is a sad step to remedy the problem. Incidently, the same is true for those who have been ordained into the Priesthood and are unable to continue in the office. They are laicized and no longer considered ordained. There is no concept of an "indelible mark" in Orthodox sacramental theology, to the best of my knowledge.
My point is that the pastoral result of Catholic annulments / Orthodox divorce is pretty much the same: the couple, after a time of repentance and counsel, are free to investigate entering into the vocation of marriage once more. Personally, I think the Orthodox practice makes a bit more sense, since it can be quite a shock to a spouse, who through no fault of her own, finds that the Church deems her an adulteress and her children illegitimate when her husband is revealed to be a serial pedophile.
The Orthodox position, as you have presented it and I understand it, does not seem consistent with the teaching of Jesus or the rest of Scripture.
Is it the case, in Orthodox understanding, that all who apply for divorce can potential receive it?
It is not the case in the Catholic Church that all who apply for an investigation in to validity/nullity will receive a declaration of nullity. Many do not get the declaration. Several noted Catholics have actually suffered martyrdom defending the indissolubility of marriage, most notably (and recently) Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher.
As to your last comment, the husband turning pedophile is not grounds for divorce or dissolving the marriage. The Church does not force people to remain living under the same roof and acknowledges lawful separation for these types of reason. But neither spouse can lawfully re-enter marriage with another individual unless the marriage is found null in the first place.
Marriage is between a man and woman, and if one turns away and leads a life of mortal sin, it is truly tragic (in the classical definition of tragedy), therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate (Mk 10:9).
The children are not 'illegitimate' if a declaration of nullity is found and the attempted marriage did not happen.
I'm puzzled by the statement, "I think the Orthodox practice makes a bit more sense"... maybe that's the root of the confusion on the Orthodox stance on this and other issues. We must think with the mind of the Church and the mind of God who created the marriage institution for higher purposes and not for man's pleasure or sensibilities.
Is it the case, in Orthodox understanding, that all who apply for divorce can potential receive it?
No. The source of the decision may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some may trust the couple's parish priest to render the decision, and others have a ecclesiastical court headed by a bishop. However, this is still seen more as a penitential rather than judicial process.
The children are not 'illegitimate' if a declaration of nullity is found and the attempted marriage did not happen.
This is the part that I don't understand. If the children are not illegitimate, then they are the product of a marriage that did not exist?
As to your last comment, the husband turning pedophile is not grounds for divorce or dissolving the marriage. The Church does not force people to remain living under the same roof and acknowledges lawful separation for these types of reason. But neither spouse can lawfully re-enter marriage with another individual unless the marriage is found null in the first place.
In this case, a woman separating from her husband for the safety of her children is intended to remain a single mother, depriving her children of a positive father figure? It just doesn't sound very pastoral to me. This is compounded by the apparent fact that, if she does seek an annulment, she has to agree with the Catholic Church's opinion that she lived in adultery for the past dozen years or so.
If the children are not illegitimate, then they are the product of a marriage that did not exist?
"illegitimate" means nothing. It's not the children's fault what the parents did. The child should not be deprived of rights because of the parents sin. "illegitimate" is a stigmatizing word that serves nothing except to lay guilt on the child where there is none. The shame lies on the parents.
is intended to remain a single mother, depriving her children of a positive father figure
Doing another wrong to try to make a right is usually bad policy and will likely not end up the way you think it will. The children have a father and the father needs to repent and return to his family. It's a tragic scenario, like I said, but compromising marriage is not a valid option, as Christ clearly explained.
It just doesn't sound very pastoral to me.
Perhaps this is where you should begin investigation.
she has to agree with the Catholic Church's opinion that she lived in adultery
First, it would be fornication, second it wouldn't be an opinion it would be objective fact. Christ gave this power to the Church ("binding and loosing", "forgiving and retaining", remember?)
Third, assuming the man and woman attempted marriage in good faith (as it usually the case in the U.S. and most Western nations -- no arranged or slave marriages or anything like that), then the culpability of the fornication would be in question. So while there was objectively grave sin happening, the couple may not be culpable for it since they did not have full knowledge or consent to the sin (believing they were doing the right thing in good conscience).
I think I see where my lack of understanding comes from: The Roman Catholic categories of "objective sin" and "culpability" just don't translate very well to into my understanding of the Orthodox worldview. I'll have to do more reading up on it, but these concepts really don't come up much in Orthodox spiritual writing.
I think this highlights a major issue in Roman Catholic - Orthodox relations, which is that concepts on one side just do not translate very well into the mindset of the other side. If we are not of one mind, how can we strive towards any sort of genuine sacramental unity?
RE: practical unity:
That's the crux. It's the same problem we have with the Protestants. It involves different interpretation of Tradition and Scripture which is why we need one Shepherd, guided by the Holy Spirit, to help us as we see in Acts and the Council of Jerusalem.
In terms of culpability, this primarily comes from John 9:39-41
39
Then Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind."
40
Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not also blind, are we?"
41
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, 'We see,' so your sin remains.
Re "makes more sense": Yes, and believing the bread and wine remain bread and wine "makes more sense," too -- just ask our Protestant brethren. :)
The question is not whether a doctrine "makes more sense" per our puny human understanding (much less our personal preferences). The question is whether the doctrine is TRUE. According to the overwhelming testimony of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of valid sacramental marriage is true.
Rather, this is why we all need to humbly seek an Orthodox phronema and come to the understanding of the holy Church Fathers.
We should be honest and admit that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox are far, far away from any sacramental unity, and drumming up hope for an immediate union is disingenuous at best. Cheers.
Arguing with one another about the blog post wont bring about unity. Only prayers and our Love of one another can this come about. Supremely it is Jesus Christ who will unite us all
Christos Annesti-Alithos annesti
Post a Comment