Pope Makes Historic Ecumenical Bid to Woo Eastern Rite Catholics

If I had to guess at the top 10 issues between the churches I'd say they are: 1. Primacy of the Pope 2. Filioque 3. Married priesthood 4. Different calendars 5. Jurisdiction (who is in charge of the Americas?) 6. Differences in iconography / or liturgy 7. Orthodoxy is more relational, RC is more legalistic so there is a mindset difference. 8. Type / purpose of monastics 9. Type of bread in communion 10. Cultural differences such as the RC's bless themselves to the right, Orthodox to the left. I don't know how much compromise there could be on some of them. Namely, the top 5 I don't see much compromise on either side. What's your top 10?

Yes, the role of the Pope of Rome would have to be evaluated. There is a good book by the Orthodox scholar Oliver Clement on the very issue. The understanding will have to be such that the Pope is not seen as \"over\" the other Patriarchs, while remaining \"first among equals.\" It would not only be the role of the Pope but the role of the whole Curia in relation to the Eastern Churches. In Europe, the Eastern Catholics celebrate Pascha the same date as the Eastern Orthodox. But on a larger scale a common calendar would be helpful. If such a union were to occur, I do not think that the question would make much sense. The Orthodox Churches in a America would not see themselves under the Pope of Rome or any Latin bishop. The Eastern Catholic churches in America today already are under their own bishops, distinct from the Latin bishops. And for the Latins, I can say that they would never see themselves under a Metropolitan of All America and Canada. IMHO, given the plurality of Churches in America, the best course of action might be to set up a conference of bishops (like the USSCB) but which would deal more specifically with relations between the churches. I don't see this as a particular problem. The Eastern Churches would have to accept that Western statuary is not heretical. In terms of Liturgy, the Western Church already accepts the Divine Liturgy, and in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy of St. Gregory closely approximates the Tridentine Latin Mass. There are other issues in present day Latin liturgy--e.g. serving facing the people, ad populum, having altar girls in the sanctuary, etc., and these would have to be addressed in some manner, but even within the Latin Church today there is disagreement concerning these. Yes, in emphasis I agree. IMHO, the West needs to rediscover the Patristic tradition, and the East needs to recognize that the West had its own particular traditions in the first millenium prior to separation. ??? The Latins and Armenians would use unleavened, the Byzantines and Copts leavened. When I went to a WRO liturgy, they used unleavened bread and gave communion by intinction (dipping the Bread into the Wine). There are other traditions related to the Eucharist that may be minor issue--e.g. \"first communion.\" In the Eastern tradition, baptized infants receive. In the Western tradition, only older children who have underwent \"first communion\" can receive. This difference exists amongst the Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics today, but it's not a huge issue. Coptic Christians sign themselves left to right, like the Latins. It's not a huge issue, IMHO. Understanding of the Primacy of Rome would be big. #7 is also big. The addition of the filioque is a concern, as is the theology of it, although I'm thinking that from an Orthodox perspective, a specifically defined filioque of \"through\" the Son might make things clearer.

George, The problem with the calender is the RC church changed calendars which was as I understand not legal without a full ecumenical council. To go to the RC calendar the Orthodox would have to agree to it, while possible it is doubtful as Orthodox believe they have pascha on the right date, there is no way we'd do it before Passover as often happens with the RC calendar. The RC's wouldn't switch back because it would be like admitting they were wrong. How can either side compromise? As far as jurisdiction goes a monk once told me, follow the money. Under Orthodoxy he says money from America goes back east, same with RC. If the two unite, and the Americas get their own Patriarch or Pope, that money dries up going east. So both sides have an interest in getting their cut from the Americas and neither would want to give it up. As far as monastics go, could you ever see a movie like Sister Act for the Orthodox? The RC have way different traditions for their monastics and by extension one MIGHT argue that their priesthood are a form of heiromonks. Orthodox monastics have a lot less to do with commercialism, RC more so. Which version would prevail should some sort of union take place? Or would each monastery do its own form? I'm sure there are way more cultural issues than I noted. Will the pope expect the Orthodox to say Hail Mary? What about musically? The list goes on ... So what's your top ten?

The Latin Church adopted the Gregorian Calendar in the 16th century, long after the separation and failed reunion attempts. As to an ecumenical council and the changing of the calendar, this seems like it would be a good idea to maintain unity, although the The Revised Julian Calendar (the New Calendar) was not adopted by an ecumenical council and remains in use. The miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem happens only right before the Orthodox Pascha, which is good evidence for Orthodox Pascha. Perhaps Rome could adopt the Paschalia of the Orthodox Church while retaining the Gregorian Calendar for other feast days. Roman Catholicism does have a monastic tradition, generally that of the Benedictine tradition (following the Rule of St. Benedict). The Benedictines, Cistercians and Carthusians, among others, are rooted in this tradition, which emphasizes poverty, chastity and obedience. In RC, there tends to be several levels of \"religious life\" -- ranging from traditional Benedictine monasticism to friars to \"contemplatives in action\" (as with the Jesuits). Many of the orders that do not follow the rule of St. Benedict follow instead the Rule of St. Augustine, which has its own history. I think that if a union were to take place, the monasteries rooted in the Eastern tradition would continue as they are, while the Western monasteries would continue in the Benedictine tradition. IMHO, there likely would be attempts (more from the pious laity than from the hierarchy) to spread the Rosary (Hail Mary's) amongst the Orthodox. It has happened in the Eastern Catholic Churches. My top ten issues: 1) Primacy of Peter (interpretation of Peter in Scripture) 2) Primacy of Rome. RC tend to conflate this with the Primacy of Peter. This specifically concerns how the early Church and Ecumenical Councils understood the See of Rome. 3) Filioque 4) Trinity (different approaches) 5) History of bad blood (e.g. Uniatism and other forced conversions on both sides, Ustashe, canonization of \"murderer\" saints, etc. Still big issue in Central and Eastern Europe) 6) Danger of rupture in the Eastern Church if union goes through. (e.g. Russian Church backs away) 7) Ecumenical Councils. How many? How to be understood? 8) Canon Law 9) Divorce and Remarriage 10) Ordinary and extraordinary magiesterium claimed by Bishop of Rome. Only over Latins?

I would be curious about the inclusion of saints on both sides.

I think that the key words are \"unless Rome changes her mind\" because if once we accept union with Rome they continue claim Supremacy/Infalliblity which gives them the to the power to change anything about our Tradition that they want whenever they want. Unless Rome officially rejects Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, I don't think that union is possible. But since Papal Infallibility is now a part of their official Dogma, I don't see how the Catholic Church could do that. Roman Catholics fully believe it to be true and of their Church suddenly began teaching they were wrong on that issue, I think that the majority of Roman Catholics would reject it. There are, as people here have already pointed out, many other issues that would also need to be addressed, but I believe \"Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope\" are on the very top of that list and that there is no point in discussing anything else until these two have been resolved.

Part of the Roman Catholic church's loss of clergy is due to the requirement of celebacy. While there are some priests who are rejecting Vat2, there are far more who are simply retiring and there is noone to replace them. I don't care for EWTN but what does a person being a \"either mixed Jews or ex-Protestant\" have to do with anything?

Regarding the OP, I don't think there's much else to say; part of the gist I intended was \"If you want to know what it would be like for Orthodox to restore communion with Rome, time HAS told what that was like for Uniates, and it has meant such obnoxious things as married men once needing to be flown out of the country to be obtained priest--the OP struck a sore nerve among the Uniates I've seen.\" I might also mention one of my less humorous posts: [url=http://jonathanscorner.com/ecumenism/]An Open Letter to Catholics on Orthodoxy and Ecumenism[/url] It explains, in part, how an Orthodox might respond to Catholic invitations to hold hands and all sing, \"Kum by Ya.\" Full details of my experience studying theology at a Catholic university would be even more obnoxious. Christos Jonathan

The question: is \"Kum by Ya\" in the vernacular?

The Orthodox Chruch has nothing to gain in a move to let the Pope take over...Cause he will take over....We just do not agree in the leadership anywahy I do not think this is possible. The primacy being the number one stumbling block.

Sadly it is not only \"liturgical \" differences that would keep us apart more so they are dogmatic differences. Who wants to have to deal with all these you all mentioned above. The diviation in dogma such as: fillioque, transubstantiation, predestination in Augustine, Alselm and Aquianas theologies, immaculate conception (theologoumenon) purgatory, ... These all form a different ethos in our undertanding of who we are aslo celebacy in clergy is a \"dogma\" (rather than a practice) since it stems from the whole dogma in Papacy. Papacy also being the worst of all heressies... Starting of how they view hierarchy as a \"vicarship\" thus the clelibacy clause. The whole concept of their theology is so twisted in many knots ...and turns that for us simple minded Orthodox cannot even fathom. Not to say our theology is not complicated but ...it is not that complex. Their theology is way to embeded in scholasticism and does take more time to figure out IMHO. Not that it is bad or good just too complicated. Our Eastern Fathers do have a very involved understanding of theology, yet their theology stems to their quest to find answers vis-a-vis heresy. We never developed dogma for the same of doing it... While in the west we see that development and evolution.

The really pathetic thing in this is that Rome is tempting the Orthodox with individualism. We can join Rome organizationally, but they'll let us maintain our own doctrine? The last time I checked, the Church is a communion founded on common belief. Before I left the Episcopal Church, I recall a meeting of a group I belonged to of supposedly Catholic minded folk. They all complained of doctrinal and liturgical silliness (I hesitate to call it heresy as such a notion has no meaning in the Episcopal milieu), but it was okay because they could each retire to their home and practice the faith their way. That's not Catholic, that's heresy almost by definition. The filioque, IMO, kills the deal from the start. Its not okay that we don't have to say it. The issue isn't that, its that the notion is wrong in the first place. I do not confess the same Christianity as a Roman Catholic (here not meant pejoratively, but rather referring to the Roman Rite), period.