Somsoc wrote:
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?
