. . . while on first papal visit of his pontificate.
200,000 in attendance at Mass.
GET THE STORY.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Yes, but what does all this “appealing for unity” do, other than to show 3rd parties that the Catholics are the ones working harder for reunion?
In the past few years the Orthodox have moved further away from us by embracing contraception. It will be very hard for them to give up their contraceptives once they get addicted to them.
The attitude that “we’ve done all the work for reunion” is a poor attitude. We give without asking, and we strive for Christ’s command that we all “be one” regardless of what others are doing. This is not the time for score-keeping – the barbarians are all around us, and reunion is too important to be petty with.
But have we really done very much for reunion? Sure, JPII and now B16 are working towards it, but is the orthodox Catholic in the pew? How many of us are really praying for it, and actively working in our own communities to achieve it? My perception of orthodox Catholic circles is that we simply feel we don’t “need” the Orthodox – they are wrong, we are right, so let them come to us. Furthermore, Catholic apologetic organizations like Catholic Answers (sorry, Jimmy) hurt the cause by attacks on the perceived “errors” of Orthodoxy – even though B16 himself has claimed that we can accept Orthodoxy as it is. Just visit a Catholic forum like “The Catholic Message Board” to see further samples of these attitudes.
Beyond praying and working personally with the Orthodox, are we willing to change our personal views of what is “orthodox Catholicism”? For example, Catholics need to radically rethink how papal primacy is practiced. We are stuck in the rut of thinking papal primacy must be practiced just like it has been for the past 200 years, even though it was not practiced like this for the previous 1,800. JPII called for all Christians to consider how primacy could be differently exercised to help bring reunion, but it doesn’t seem like most orthodox Catholics want to budge on this issue.
Fortunately, B16 seems to be working hard on this issue; I just hope all of us will follow.
But, golly, they ARE wrong, and we ARE right, and as many steps as I’ve seen the Catholic Church take lately, I’ve seen none reciprocated. At a certain point, one must simply say, “Look, the door is open, come in when you want, but in the meantime, life is not waiting on you.” (I know, this is such a Western attitude. But, for all it’s faults, sometimes the West works, and the East simply doesn’t.)
From what I’ve read so far (on Eastern Orthodox Forums) this isn’t going over very well and the general consensus seems to be one of bemusement and ridicule rather than of welcome. I even read the words;
“We are not an Ecumenical Church”, in defence of their ‘lose the papacy and we can talk’…’admit you were in error on the filioque clause…and we can talk some more’…’admit you are schismatic and…’, ‘we are NOT another lung, we don’t even want to be associated with you’ stance.
I realise that in real life the Eastern Orthodox may hold entirely different opinions about the Holy Father’s endeavours…wish I knew some of them.
Pray. Pray and then pray some more.
God Bless.
Thanks for proving my point, Ed.
“But, golly, they ARE wrong, and we ARE right, ”
On what? Everything? We have nothing to learn from them? Specifically, how papal primacy is practiced today is “right” – even though it’s not like it was practiced for 1,800 years?
That’s not a Western attitude, that’s an arrogant attitude.
We can learn much from the East -which JPII constantly reminded us by telling us to “breath with both lungs”. I’m not saying the East is perfect either, but our insistence that our Church government (a major point of contention) is the ONLY way the Church can operate – against all the evidence of the 1st millennium, which looked much more like Orthodoxy – is simply blind arrogance.
We can’t allow the poor attitude shown by many Orthodox (but NOT all – look at the Ecumenical Patriarch) stop us from our Christian duty to reach out. Christian love does not count the rejections of a sister; it continues to strive for reconciliation. I would rather give up every “Western” government structure, practice and non-doctrinal belief and be united than keep the schism alive because of hte misguided notion that the East is “wrong”
As ukok stated, we need to “Pray. Pray and then pray some more.”.
Francis, why do you speak to us as if we were two year olds?
Hi. I was quite aware that I’d come across as proving your point (that was part of MY point). But your point, as phrased, was right, even if you didn’t want it to be. Now you have made a caricature of it by rephrasing as if I had said “We are right on everything.” Fair-minded people know, of course, that my assertion was that “We are right about the things that truly separate us, including papal primacy, contraception, and the permanence of marriage, inter alia.” Anyway, my point (that truth is, in the end, something accepted or rejected, but not changed) stands, my unworthiness to make the point nothwithstanding. In the end, Christ is the model here, as in John 6. He did not go chasing after those who, in the end, rejected His teaching. He let them go. With sadness, no doubt, but respecting their choice not to believe. At a certain point, ecumenism becomes condescending, namely, when it acts if the other side just doesn’t understand us (poor benighted blighters). I think, at some point, we have to say, people are smart enough to know what’s at issue. They just don’t WANT to come in. Okay.
Guys, when you talk like this, you’re turning off the Orthodox who *are* receptive to Benedict’s message, and believe me, they exist. See this thread for one who has the same feelings about being rebuffed by ordinary Catholics that you have by the Orthodox, yet is open to Benedict’s challenge. And I personally know Orthodox who are similarly open.
The nastiness does exist. Ignore the nasty people. There are non-nasty people out there, and the best way you’ll get to know them is by ignoring their nasty counterparts.
“B16 Appeals For Union With Orthodox”
Not to sound cymical, but could someone please explain to me why this everyday Pope-Speak is newsworthy? The Popes have been “appealing for union with the Orthodox” since 1054 A.D. What else is new?
Billy,
I apologize if I sounded like I was condescending – that was not my intention. I feel passionate about this issue, and I sometimes get overheated about it.
My objection is with what I perceive are two problems with orthodox Catholics in this regard:
1) What we believe is “non-negotiable” with the Orthodox. Doctrine is non-negotiable, not how it might be put into practice. Papal primacy is a great example. Although I believe fully in the Vatican I definition in this regard, I don’t think how primacy has been practiced – especially how it relates to the Eastern Catholic Churches – is necessary and it could be changed for ecumenical reasons. I perceive a rigidness with orthodox Catholics where there should be charity.
2) Our lack of caring. In my experience, most orthodox Catholics I know just don’t care if we are united with the Orthodox or not. If they come over fine, but if they don’t, well, that’s fine too. But JPII has emphasized that the Church is lesser because of the schism, and that we would more fully breath with both lungs if we were reunited. But it is rare to find someone who seems to give a darn about this – thus my frustration.
Billy,
I apologize if I sounded like I was condescending – that was not my intention. I feel passionate about this issue, and I sometimes get overheated about it.
My objection is with what I perceive are two problems with orthodox Catholics in this regard:
1) What we believe is “non-negotiable” with the Orthodox. Doctrine is non-negotiable, not how it might be put into practice. Papal primacy is a great example. Although I believe fully in the Vatican I definition in this regard, I don’t think how primacy has been practiced – especially how it relates to the Eastern Catholic Churches – is necessary and it could be changed for ecumenical reasons. I perceive a rigidness with orthodox Catholics where there should be charity.
2) Our lack of caring. In my experience, most orthodox Catholics I know just don’t care if we are united with the Orthodox or not. If they come over fine, but if they don’t, well, that’s fine too. But JPII has emphasized that the Church is lesser because of the schism, and that we would more fully breath with both lungs if we were reunited. But it is rare to find someone who seems to give a darn about this – thus my frustration.
Sorry for the double-post.
Well, francis, I give a darn. Well, actually, it’s more like a driving obsession at the moment, ever since I’ve begun discovering the riches of the Eastern Church. Part of that heritage is still ours, but you quickly begin seeing that there is so much that we’re losing out on by this split. And also, how much scandal is caused to Catholics, Orthodox, and un-believers by the fact that the two curches who have traditionally called themselves catholic and orthodox are not together.
You’re right about Point one. For example, how many Roman Catholics know that the question of whether we say ‘filioque’ in the creed is open? Doctrine is immutable, but the question there is whether that phrase expresses the doctrine without confusing and scandalizing others about its meaning. Reading about the historical controversy over that phrase, you do start to realize that the Orthodox were not entirely to blame for their negative reaction, even though the Western introducers did not intend a different theology of the Trinity.
Not to sound cymical, but could someone please explain to me why this everyday Pope-Speak is newsworthy? The Popes have been “appealing for union with the Orthodox” since 1054 A.D. What else is new?
Probably for the same reason folks find pro-life statements from His Holiness to be newsworthy.
I am inclined towards cynicism myself but I must admit that everything His Holiness says is newsworthy.
I have to think that part of the “problem” with the Orthodox is that they see how our Western traditions have been abused in the Church, and they have apprehensions about how their own traditions might be treated.
From what I’ve read so far (on Eastern Orthodox Forums) this isn’t going over very well and the general consensus seems to be one of bemusement and ridicule rather than of welcome.
My own understanding is that the online EO community does not represent the “sensus fidelium” of the EO Church as a whole. (Any more than the online Catholic community represents the Catholic Church!) Some of the Eastern Orthodox might be “unreachable” — recall how John Paul II was mocked as “the two-horned monster of Rome” when His Holiness paid a visit to Greece. But is this representative of the beliefs of your average Orthodox Christian? I doubt it.
I think the main obstacle is the indissolubility of marriage. The Orthodox permit divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances. There are a lot of Orthodox Christains who are living in second marriages that have been blessed by their churches. If there were reunion would the Orthodox leaders say to them, “Oops, sorry. Your marriages are bigamous and adulterous. You’ll have to separate or live as brother and sister”? Or would the Pope say to Catholics who were deserted by spouses years ago, “Oops, sorry. You could have remarried years ago instead of living alone, raising your children alone, etc.”? And there are also the divorced Catholics who “remarried” outside the Church. What would the Church say to them?
The Melkite Catholic Church actually retained the Orthodox practice of ecclesiastical divorce into the XXth century. Really, this is not the stumbling block that Papal Primacy and Infallibility are.
Ironically, every move the Church makes towards ecumenism with Protestants only drives the Orthodox even further away.
It would be great if the Latin and Greek churches could end their schism before the 1000 year anniversary of 1054. Personally, I see the disunity caused from politics than actual theology.
If the Church is sincere about reconciliation, it will do more than just appeal. The actual schism lead to some nasty things. The Fourth Crusade did not lead to a lot of unity in the long term. And there is a lot of historical baggage that comes from that schism. Croat vs Serb. Pole vs Russian. The differences in the local churches have fueled nationalism.
Let us not forget that the Catholic Church not only allows but creates in certain instances when dealing with natural marriages by way of the Pauline and Petrine Privilege.
Allows and creates “divorce” that is…
What the Church does in those instances is dissolve natural marriages. Marriages that are valid, Sacramental, and consummated are indissoluable.
The Orthodox Church does not have a system of annulments, which makes predicting how the ‘divorce’ issue would play out in the case of a reunion rather difficult. I think what we could hope for would be that they’d recognize the concept of annulments and apply it to their members.
This would probably create some individuals ‘cheating’ to get around the rules, but it does remain a fact that Orthodox marriages break down for the same reasons Catholic do, and look how many Catholics are able to get annulments.
I don’t know if there are marriage tribunals currently too lax – I expect there are – but after hearing canon lawyers like Pete Vere out on the subject, I have been quite convinced that there is more invalid understanding of marriage today than ever.
I don’t know if there are marriage tribunals currently too lax – I expect there are – but after hearing canon lawyers like Pete Vere out on the subject, I have been quite convinced that there is more invalid understanding of marriage today than ever.
That may be true but in general the Sacraments are valid even when our intention to receive them is somewhat deficient. For example, it is generally held that imperfect contrition suffices for a valid confession. We don’t need perfection (although perfection is nice) when we approach the other Sacraments; why should we need it when we approach the Sacrament of Matrimony?
I think my wife and I probably had a deficient understanding of marriage and its obligations when we were married. If we adopt the general principle that there is a lot of “invalid understanding of marriage” out there, then conscientious Catholics might come to the conclusion that they are living in invalid marriages when in fact they aren’t.
The problem with an improper understanding of marriage is that in today’s society it goes hand in hand with an improper intent. A person completely uneducated in the theology of marriage can go into a proper marriage with the intent to follow the Church’s rules: to stay faithful to the other spouse, to welcome children etc. The sort of misunderstandings people have today mean that they often do not intend to do anything at all like that. It’s about the equivalent of going to confession without any idea to sin no more.
I think that an intent to follow the Church’s guidance, even if one doesn’t understand what all that is, if one is a freely consenting adult in one’s right mind, is all that is needed for a valid marriage.
As an Eastern Orthodox, I am much more inclined to love my Catholic friends and seek them in fellowship than to enter into doctrinal discussions on such topics. People get angry and say “Don’t pigeon-hole all of Catholicism into “12th and 13th Century Scholastic formulations of Indissolubility and Nullity”. Of course not! Unless Catholics themselves forget all their glorious tradition before that point.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see Eastern Orthodoxy blessing adultery nor “performing” divorces. Holy Scripture allows for certain exceptions (adultery and death to name two) … so we are debating the exceptions. Expanding the principle of Nullity as has been done makes it look to me (and I don’t mean to offend) like divorce. I’ve got Catholic friends on their third set of children with their third set of wives … and they are taking communion every Sunday. I hear people talk about those who get their tubes tied as being “speyed”. I’m jumping around here but where I’m going is that our practices … if not our preaching … dishonors marriage and dishonors ourselves. Let’s start off by showing respect for one another. Exceptions do not and should not wipe out the norm … but “norm” refers etymologically to the carpeter’s square not to law.
And yes, many of us Orthodox are concerned that Catholicism, particularly in America, is moving towards Protestantism. Again, I don’t mean that as an offense. Where I live, the diocese is very stable and small “o” orthodox. I do not wish to speak of scandal. All churches have sons and daughters who fall into corruption. We must all work to assist the Holy Spirit to renew the Church. In my experience, striving for purity via inquisition or castigation, especially of others, is less effective than doing our own work on ourselves with humility.
Francis, I know this is late in the game on this threat, but I eccho your sentiments completely. I find Ed’s comments to be both arrogant and misguided. In the case of the filique, “we ARE wrong”. Not in concept, but in execution. It was a 9th century arbitrary Spanish innovation that did not come from any legitimate ecumenical council. And it is NOT said in the Nicene creed when read in ANY of the Eastern Catholic churches.
The Ed’s comments and sentiments are of course magnified in the Orthodox world as well. We should make no mistake about that. Yet there HAVE been some very significant in-roads, such as the mutual interchange of sacraments in the Malankara church.
The Orthodox are losing adherents left and right to fundies and evangelicals. Sound familiar? Every day the true churches of the councils are separated causes a thousand tears from Our Lady.
CCC 247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447*, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
*Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
Precisely. And once again, I stated clearly that the concept or dogma of the change to the verbage of the creed was/is not an issue. It is in effect the execution of it. As stated, it was “gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries)” without consent or even counsel from the other churches, which constituted “innovation”.
I honestly don’t know to what extent Orthodox are losing membership to the evangelical and megachurches. Our Antiochian diocese of Wichita and MidAmerica is experiencing small but steady growth. Frankly, the immigrant churches here in America that have insisted on maintaining the Liturgy in their native tongue too often fall into the syndrome of thinking the Church is a private club. They forget to serve the mission of the Church. And many don’t even know their parents’ tongue but some prefer the Liturgy in an unknown language so that they needn’t listen and may rest at the level of aesthetic appreciation for the beauty of the service. Prayer is work and I too often find myself resting and letting the sound of the words go over me without listening, without mindfulness. Or similarly, having my private interesting thoughts instead of being present.
I have noticed that we get a small but steady influx *from* evangelical and pietistic churches such as the Mennonites. We all bring our expectations of how things should be and all require re-education and formation in the faith to rediscover Christianity as practised and understood *inside* the Church. We now require a year of catechesis prior to Chrismation for adults (which in this context functions for us as Confirmation or Reception). It seems a long time to fast from the sacraments but it is better to not partake than to partake without discerning the Body. Nothing more curious than a new Orthodox convert “witnessing” to people in the parking lot as they attempt to escape after coffee hour! Lord have mercy. But I will say that our new converts often assist us to rediscover aspects our faith and we benefit from their zeal and surprise in newfound wonder. Proper catechesis is really important to our churches as we do not have a Protestant understanding of the revolving door.
John, excellent news about your church membership! And yes, I agree that the bane of Orthodoxy is this incessant “turf war” of who is in charge of which congregation, which is many times drawn down the lines of ethnicity.
And I was not referring to the US, Canada or Australia with regards to Orthodox losing their numbers to Evangelicals. I was referring specifically to their native countries, such as Russia, Greece, and Ethiopia etc. It is a huge deal in those places.
I’m afraid my experience of Orthodoxy is fairly provincial. However, the recent Orthodox-Catholic discussion where we couldn’t get Russia to sit down at table with other Orthodox over a territorial huff about Estonia was a scandal.
As I read, for instance, JPII’s Theology of the Body, the arguments developing, for instance, Indissolubility of marriage are based on metaphysical and epistemological implications drawn in the context of Aristotelian causality. At times, the arguments appear a bit tenuous although I tend to agree with the conclusions. However, in a dialog that does not take the same Scholastic form, I think it will leave most Orthodox scratching their heads. No remarriage because of the escatological implications of final cause?
Sure, God intended us to be one, intended permanence, intended sinlessness and a vegetarian diet. As a sympathetic reader, I can see how an unsympathetic approach may balk and suggest that other implications might equally be drawn. OK, now that Paradise is irretrievably lost and sin and death loose in the world, perhaps original oneness of man and woman is also lost, and the new grace of the fruits of the Holy Spirit necessary in the soul before one can live up to God’s intentions. From there, it is a short step to saying, men fail of their obedience and perhaps the Church might recognize the failure at times as *real* and *irrevocable* in terms of some marital relationships and yet not consign those most in need of forgiveness and grace to a solitary condition (which in Creation, for the first time, God called *not good*) where they either burn with lust else are separated from the sacraments. The reality and mystery is that baptized Christians continue to sin.
The Church cannot do what God does not do. God does not bless sin; rather, He prunes it. God also blesses us and gives us second chances. Divorce entails sin and calls for repentance. It is not mutually agreed, however, that remarriage is in and of itself, sin. I believe the Orthodox believe that God’s providence can in fact work through remarriage. If it were, we would have agreement. The first step is to realize we have a problem and what the boundaries of the problem are.
Anyway, if unity is our goal, we will have to reexamine together doctrines and even dogmas established apart from one another. Patience will be required. By the way, I’m not making any personal “excuses” for remarriage although I believe Catholicism needs to tighten up its praxis regarding Nullity.
John,
True enough. But perhaps you do not really understand either what the Church does, or what God does not?
I recommend you read JPII’s book, Theology of the Body so we are on the same page, so to speak. If you are going to claim that God might bless sin or some sins, I recommend the Episcopal Church to you. I think it more likely that your question is polemical and that pretty much ends the listening process. I’ve been fair and honest to the best of my ability. Ventures into Internet discussion have been disappointing to me (mea culpa!) Ask yourself if the point of Roman-Orthodox dialog is to collapse the other lung or to breath with both.
Pax,
John
John,
No intention to be polemical; I may have misinterpreted your comment. In looking back, I’m really not sure what you meant by it. My original interpretation was that you were suggesting the Catholic Church was “blessing sin.”
As for the Theology of the Body, I have read it and believe that it will be the primary reason John Paul the Great is some day declared to be a doctor of the Church.
I think the rest of your comment is based on a misinterpretation of what I was saying.
Peace.
No, I mean that the Church qua Church (Body of Christ) cannot do other than what we receive from Christ. There is a principle of ascetical theology implicit in this but it is not needful for us to speak in those terms here to make my poorly attempted distinction.
When the woman caught in adultery was sent on her way, Jesus did not say,
“You have not sinned” but rather he said “Go and sin no more.” This is consistent and not simply one example from one pericope although it is a useful one here for my purpose. Therefore, the Church cannot say to an adulterer, “You have committed no sin” or “coveting your neighbor’s wife is OK” or that we are OK and our behavior is entirely something apart from us. In fact, Jesus emphasizes the psychological reality (if you have even thought it) of sin.
If the Church was to cease to name sin as sin and cease to call all people to repentence and amendment of life, it would be a fundamental betrayal God’s people … for this is part of the medicine we need for this pilgrimage through this tragically mortal and wounded life on our way to Life Eternal. (Of course, we need sanctifying grace and so forth but I can’t proclaim the entire Gospel right now as I have to get ready for church.)