[CS-FSLUG] NI (TD): Russian Orthodox bishop appeals for Catholic-Orthodox alliance

[Michael Bradley, Jr.]

On Oct 4, 2005, at 10:21 PM, Timothy Butler wrote:

>>
>> No, I think you may be missing the point. The hope is to foster  
>> unity according to the express prayer or Our Lord the night before  
>> He gave His life for us, "that they may all be one . . ." (John  
>> 17:21)
>>
>
>     Very true. I suspect it will be a long road before the Western  
> Church can reunite (if ever, given the structural differences  
> between most Protestant groups and the RCC), but in lieu of that, I  
> must say I enjoy vicariously the attempts at bringing together the  
> Eastern and Western/Catholic churches. Given the the vacuum you  
> rightly note, I cannot think of anything better.

Please continue to pray for unity between the Western Catholic Church  
and the Eastern Orthodox Church(es). That particular "long road"  
won't get any shorter without tremendous grace, nor unless hearts on  
both sides of the divide are as open as possible to the movements and  
inspirations of the Holy Spirit. The late Pope John Paul II  
repeatedly likened the West and East to "lungs" of the universal  
Church -- and two lungs are required for optimal health. He called  
for the universal Church to learn to breathe again, and deeply, with  
both lungs. For Western Christians -- Catholics and Protestants --  
this means "doing a lot of homework." I, for one, didn't know beans  
about Eastern Christianity until I started reading about it several  
years ago. Try this:


          http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=3&IndexView=toc


To work through this wonderful on-line survey-treatise, you will need  
to use the "Table of Contents" nav-box on the top-right side of each  
page, as there are no "next/back" controls at the bottom or top of  
each page.

Pope Benedict XVI is seriously committed to making, as he stated in  
one of his first public addresses, "concrete gestures" towards unity  
with the EO. We'll see what happens, but I'm fairly optimistic. If/ 
when he makes the first trip by a pope in over 1000+ years (ever?) to  
visit the Patriarch of Constantinople, I wouldn't be terribly  
surprised if there isn't set in motion a formal process leading to a  
"great council of re-union" being convoked by the Pope and all of the  
heads of the Orthodox churches. The hope was to make the visit on  
Nov. 30th of this year, but the Turkish govt. is pushing it out to  
next year.


>     Of course, some Protestant groups can probably work within this  
> context too, if we work out an ecumenical understanding --  
> particularly the Anglican Communion, the Lutheran Churches and  
> perhaps the liturgical parts of some other churches (such as the  
> Presbyterian Church)...


There was and is a "joint declaration" between the Catholic Church  
and the Lutheran World Federation concerning the doctrine of  
justification. It's more of a "we have an understanding of one  
another" type thing, than an actual reconciliation between Catholic  
and Lutheran theology, but hey it's a start! Here's a link:


          http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=441


Apparently, a European Methodist federation (or something like that,  
I couldn't find the article in which I read this several days ago) is  
preparing to formally "sign on" to this declaration as well.

Before he was elected as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was heading up  
talks with an Anglican body known as the "Traditional Anglican  
Communion." Apparently, they bore a lot of fruit, and now the last of  
the TAC member churches have voted to pursue formal unity with Rome.  
Here are some links:


          http://www.acahome.org/tac/

          http://www.keepmecurrent.com/organization/story.cfm? 
storyID=9432


Supposedly, the "offer" on the table from Ratzinger and crew was/is  
the effective creation of an Anglican Catholic Church which will  
retain in perpetuity a married priesthood and a married episcopate! I  
can't confirm the truth of that, but the rumor originated from highly  
privileged sources.

Now, the TAC is composed of congregations that broke-away from  
Canterbury as a result of various controversies in the last several  
decades, e.g. women's ordination and homosexual bishops. It's unclear  
what effect this development would have on relations between  
Canterbury and Rome. It might act as a short-circuit to efforts at  
unity between the larger Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.  
In other words, many disgruntled conservative/traditional Anglicans  
(a great majority of them are young, even very young) might flood the  
new ACC and leave the ultra-liberal-progressive Anglican churches to  
eventually die of old age.


>     The first step, of course, is to stop what you note concerning  
> "sheep stealing." We can only garner inter-denominational trust if  
> we quit the infighting.

I have no problem discussing outright the similarities and  
differences between various churches and denominations. And since I  
am a firm believer in the concept that "the only good reason to  
believe in something is because it's true," I highly encourage  
individual believers, even groups of believers, to investigate the  
claims and teachings of various churches and even other religions. At  
the same time, I encourage such persons to not get so caught up in  
attempting to know or define what they believe as to lose sight of  
the importance of actually firmly professing their faith!

If at the end of the day such investigations lead someone or some  
group to change membership, then so be it.

BUT, I would stipulate that any such discussions and decisions need  
to be grounded in valid, sound arguments which lean upon documentable  
source materials. It's one thing to have a discussion which goes like,

"I believe 'xyz' concerning topic-A and here is my reasoning in the  
matter (Scriptural references, etc.); your church/religion teaches  
'abc' concerning topic-A (or equivalent) and here are its reasons as  
you've explained them or are explaining them to me . . . "

[ Such discussions often lead to further fruitful research and better  
mutual understanding between believers. ]

AND quite another to have one like,

"Your church invented/believes/teaches 'foobar' because/during/at  
[insert bogus, completely undocumented historical claim; or re- 
statement of the belief/teaching in question in fallacious terms];  
but here's what the Bible says . . ."

[ Such discussions leave little room for charity between the parties  
in disagreement, when in reality there is almost always a lot they  
could learn from each other. ]

The lesson I've learned over and over again is never to assume that  
you know as much about what the other person believes as you think  
you do based on his/her religious affiliation. Ask him what he  
believes, and truly listen (take notes even). Then, make sure to ask  
him to state his understanding of the beliefs of your own church/ 
denomination. And from there, proceed to a charitable exchange --  
"charitable" does not imply that the parties be "mealy-mouthed" or  
"circumlocutious." In my experience, this format is not absolutely  
required in order to have a positive exchange, but it sure can help.



In Christ,

Michael Bradley, Jr.

--
My home on the Net ::
    http://homepage.mac.com/michaelsbradleyjr/

IC XC NIKA