East and West - Will They Ever Be Re-united?

[Zenith Darksea]

The Greek and Latin Churches have the same heritage. They sprang from the same crucible, and have a huge amount in common. However, since the eleventh century they have been seemingly irreversibly divided from each other.

I became Greek Orthodox this year (as many will be sick of hearing!), having originally been a Presbyterian of the Church of Scotland. From that background, and coming into the Eastern Church, I imagined that I would still find a great deal of animosity with the Roman Catholic Church. I even imagined that I would make more common cause with Protestants than I would with Catholics.

How naive I was. I was actually rather surprised to see that all the Catholics I knew were strongly supportive of my decision and that I received the most criticism for my move from Protestants. Indeed, I pretty soon felt my old animosity for the Roman Catholic Church slipping somewhat (not entirely, but we'll get to that later). I discovered that my beliefs had a great amount in common with those of Roman Catholicism, and I have become very close to a number of Catholics now, who themselves have remarked on the huge amount that our beliefs have in common (having only seen Orthodoxy for the first time when I became Orthodox).

Yet problems remain. While we have (mostly) forgiven the Latin Church for the Crusades (and the Pope has apologised for that, to give him credit), we have jointly lifted the anathemas on each other's Churches and we are generally on cordial terms, there are still big impediments. We Orthodox will never accept Papal infallibility (and rightly so, I think), and there are a number of theological innovations (such as the 'filioque' clause and the immaculate conception of Mary) that we couldn't swallow frankly (because in our view they're based on flawed foundations, such as St Augustine's view of Original Sin and the Pope's claim to be infallible). Not only that, but there is still the difference in mindset between East and West, the West having a legalistic desire to codify theology and the East taking a much vaguer, more mystical approach.

In the world as it is today, the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church are drawing slowly closer, and facing challenges from much younger traditions in the Protestant movement their similarities have been highlighted. However, could the differences be overcome? Could East and West be re-united?

[dragases1453]

In my opinion not...Orthodox church have also different saints form the catholic one...and for example the catholics don't want to accept some orthodox saints ( for example Konsatntinos XI Dragases is an orthodox saint but for teh catholics not even if the two churches in 1453 were formally unified) and anyway there's a too different way of seeing religion in catholics and orthodox people even if the sacraments and major "rules" are the same...even if i live in italy and i'm half italian and half greek i prefer the orthodox church...and don't forget that the patriarchs will never accept the supremacy of the pope.
in their opinion the patriarch of rome(the pope) is at the same level of the other patriarchs( Costantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and also Moskva). In my opinion this is a good point but the pope don't want to accept...so it's difficutl a reconciliation( and the orthodox church didn't forget what the crusaders did and also didn't forget when catholics ddin't helped the byzantines against the turks...

sorry for the not so good english...

[Tiwaz]

Most likely not. Pope would never give up his power and become just another leader.

Orthodox society would never accept someone with papal position.

While origins remain the same these two churches have drifter too far apart to be able to truly become close again.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Orthodox Church won't accept papal supremacy. The Vatican will never degrade its status. No. I guess God could sort of guide us a bit, but I suppose thats too much trouble.

[Zenith Darksea]

I think it's a shame really, because if the Latin and Orthodox Churches were re-united then there might be no end to the amount they could achieve. However, I agree unfortunately that it is unrealistic to expect the Latins to reverse the various innovations that they made over the years.

[Eric]

I'm Catholic and I can see why the Orthodox Christians can't accept Papal infallibility, that seems a little ridiculous, even to me. I mean, isn't it detailed in the Bible that only God and His son, Jesus are truly infallible? So if only the Almighty is truly infallible, how can a Man of God, dedicated no doubt, but still just a man, be infallible? It makes no sense.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well the Orthodox concept is that the Church in Oecumenical Council is infallible (through the epiklesis of the Holy Spirit), but I think that in the West the Pope seems to have got the idea that he himself represents the whole Church.

[rez]

You said that a united church could achieve a large amount in this world Zenith. Could you elaborate on that for me?

I am curious to see what one theological society could influence in the stead of two fairly similar societies. Is there a serious impediment on the development of each others respective churches?

I know little of the orthodox church so i am anxious to learn more from you

Edit: I find it hard to believe that any human or humans could possibly claim infallibility. Especially in a religion that celebrates the greatness of their God's omniscience

[Harbringerxv8]

Papal infallibility is a somewhat misunderstood concept. From how I understand it (and how my priest explained it to me when I was younger) is that his infallibility is linked to church doctrine. And considering that the doctrine of the Catholic Church hasn't changed all that much over the past 2,000 years, I think that the infallibility is pretty much on target.

[Sétanta]

No. Unfortunately not, though. As you have highlighted Papal Infalliability and the claim to be the Vicar of Christ is too deeply rooted within the Catholic Church (Be it Latin or Easter Rite) to change. After 2,000 years and possibly hundreds of opportunities to change that theological belief, it will not change. However, it is much easier for the Eastern Orthodox Churches to accept Papal Supremacy at the very least regaining the status as first among equals (which sometimes the Othodox Church accepts anyways).

By recognizing Papal Supremacy and Infalliability you would become Catholic in a sense because issues like the Immaculate Conception are sometimes debated even within Rites of the Catholic Church (theological differences between the Latin and some Eastern Rite Churches).

However, since the Orthodox Church will never and can never (well actually I suppose they can) accept the two main ideas regarding the Pope then the two "real" main Christian Churches will never be re-unified. Possible yes, likely no.

The two churches can continue to build relations and work together even more and more, but Orthodox Patriarchs will never submit to the Pope in Rome.

[dragases1453]

Papal infallibility is a somewhat misunderstood concept. From how I understand it (and how my priest explained it to me when I was younger) is that his infallibility is linked to church doctrine. And considering that the doctrine of the Catholic Church hasn't changed all that much over the past 2,000 years, I think that the infallibility is pretty much on target.

The Catholic church changed more than the orthodox one; for example in the council of Lyon in 1274 the Pope and the council stated that existed a middle-kingdom between hel and heaven and this was the Purgatory; for the orthodox church this was unacceptable, because as the Holy Bible said a man had to repent himself during his life and not after; and there were other chenges the catholics made during the year but now i don't remember all of them...anyway the catholic church changed more then the orthodox one which remained more traditional...

[bdh]

Edit: I find it hard to believe that any human or humans could possibly claim infallibility. Especially in a religion that celebrates the greatness of their God's omniscience

Theologically its very simple. JC said the HS will always be with you and there is the concept of Apostolic succession. Also, though it sounds like it empowers the pope, its really rather inflated. The only time he ever declared anything infallible was with the approval of a Church council, which, technically, would make it infallible anyway. Ex Cathedra stuff is directed at Peter/Pope (as the leader of the apostles/bishops), but its like an uber official stamp from the head of an organization.


The only way I could see the two re-unifying would be if the pope gave up some of his power and basically became head of a council that was composed of other Patriarchs(most likely 11 others). Though I imagine he would remain chief 'executive' of the Church.

(such as the 'filioque' clause and the immaculate conception of Mary)
Those really are rather foolish divisions. For filioque, the Catholic Church is actually giving in somewhat. As for the immaculate conception/assumption, it was a long beleived idea (though not mentioned in scripture other than in the story with Mary's parents) but it makes sense to a degree that JC's parents would be close to sinless.

[John I Tzimisces]

"but Orthodox Patriarchs will never submit to the Pope in Rome."

Or, whats more, the Supreme Patriarch of Constantinople, nor any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which have been split from all your silly church politics for 1555 years now ()

[Sétanta]

Or, whats more, the Supreme Patriarch of Constantinople, nor any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which have been split from all your silly church politics for 1555 years now ()

I didn't even bother trying to reason with a Oriental Orthodox "re-joining" of the Catholic Church

[Zenith Darksea]

Interestingly, it seems that it will only be a matter of time now (perhaps even five or ten years) before the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are re-united. It seems that these days at least we hold the same beliefs, and that the original schism was caused largely by certain aspects of the Greek language being lost in translation. This was even a problem with the West as well - Greek is such a rich language that it can easily express concepts that other languages find very hard to express. The only equal to date that I can think of is English, and even English has a problem translating Greek at times.

It's interesting that more than one person here has said that Papal Infallibility has always been a Church doctrine and that Latin Church doctrine hasn't changed at all for two thousand years. The Orthodox would say that Papal Infallibility was actually quite a new concept to them and would put its introduction to the Latin Church in perhaps the ninth or tenth centuries AD. As an Orthodox I can say that nobody in the Orthodox Church would agree that we ever supported Papal Infallibility. We do support Petrine primacy of honour, but we don't see the Pope as an autocrat.

A lot of people point to Christ's saying to St Peter that he is the "rock on which I shall build my Church." Indeed Rome was the centre of Christianity for sometime, but to read infallibility into this statement is hardly necessary. The bottom line is that the Churches of the East were never asked to accept Papal authority in doctrine until the filioque controversy of the eleventh century. The early fathers and the oecumenical councils only ever recognised an oecumenical council as infallible, not the Pope of Rome. Where exactly the Latins got the idea of Papal Infallibility from I could not say, but I can't accept that it was ever a part of original Holy Tradition. The Holy Spirit, as bdh said, is always with us, but only when the Church is gathered in Oecumenical Council, not when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra.

Rez - what I meant was that if the Orthodox and Latin Churches were to be united into a single (responsible!) body, then they would have a considerable amount of influence on the world stage (and no doubt through the Latin Church a considerable amount of money). One example of the potential good effects would be a much better coordination of Christian charity. We would also have a much stronger voice with which to speak out.

[John I Tzimisces]

Interestingly, it seems that it will only be a matter of time now (perhaps even five or ten years) before the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are re-united. It seems that these days at least we hold the same beliefs, and that the original schism was caused largely by certain aspects of the Greek language being lost in translation. This was even a problem with the West as well - Greek is such a rich language that it can easily express concepts that other languages find very hard to express. The only equal to date that I can think of is English, and even English has a problem translating Greek at times.

And the fact that the oriental orthodox only recognize 3 ecumenical councils isn't going to be resolved so quickly?
I have read that Armenian and Greek text is virtually completely interchangable. If the Greek Bible is the original complete bible, the Armenian is referred to as it's queen. I'm not sure if that is the only issue at hand...

Also bearing in mind that Oriental Orthodox seems to me to be a very loose term. When it is not 4:30 in the morning I'll do some research on the Syriac and Armenian Churches, since the two were in conflict during the period of Sassanid Occupation...

[RusskiSoldat]

The Russian church is like the Russian mafia.
They let people (my father among them) smuggle goods through them (as they don't pay taxes) in exchange for a modest "donation" and have a monopoly on holy candles which are the only kind you can put in front of an icon.
They make them and sell them at a huge markup for idiots to buy.

[I Have a Clever Name]

And considering that the doctrine of the Catholic Church hasn't changed all that much over the past 2,000 years, I think that the infallibility is pretty much on target.

Mediaeval orgies included, I take it?

Rez - what I meant was that if the Orthodox and Latin Churches were to be united into a single (responsible!) body, then they would have a considerable amount of influence on the world stage (and no doubt through the Latin Church a considerable amount of money). One example of the potential good effects would be a much better coordination of Christian charity. We would also have a much stronger voice with which to speak out.

Personally I'd rather the Orthodox and Latin churches remain seperated, for the same reason. The clout would be pretty impressive, and as an atheist I don't want to see any religion exert that kind of influence.

[bdh]

The bottom line is that the Churches of the East were never asked to accept Papal authority in doctrine until the filioque controversy of the eleventh century. The early fathers and the oecumenical councils only ever recognised an oecumenical council as infallible, not the Pope of Rome. Where exactly the Latins got the idea of Papal Infallibility from I could not say, but I can't accept that it was ever a part of original Holy Tradition. The Holy Spirit, as bdh said, is always with us, but only when the Church is gathered in Oecumenical Council, not when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra.

'

But at the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation declared that the condemnation at the Council of Lyons was unfounded. Papal Supremacy and Ex Cathedra, as they were understood in the past, aren't exactly the same as they are today. Since the Papacy lost much of its Temporal power in the 19th century, the Papacy has become much less autocratic. Also, the only use of Ex Cathedra in the Church was at Oecumenical Council.

[Zenith Darksea]

Which council was that? Because if it was after the schism then it wasn't Oecumenical, and I know that Papal Infallibility wasn't mentioned at any pre-schism council. I don't know exactly what happened at the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, but I can't see any Orthodox accepting Papal Infallibility as a dogma.