Pope Leo XIV and Patriarch Barthlomew's commitment to Church unity.
pablito1954
Shipmate
in Purgatory
On Saturday 29th November, Pope Leo XIV and the Ecumenical Patriarch signed a declaration proposing unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, with a commitment to visible unity which presumably means shared Communion.
We all know that it's a long way from a commitment by two Patriarchs to its existence in reality. At 71, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. However I am overjoyed that they are even talking about it. Of course, ever since the papacy of St John Paul II, such gestures and overtures have been made, but it seems to have reached a new level of commitment.
I think most Christians are conscious of the fact that we're all in breach of Christ's command that we should all be ONE, but do many Christians care much about any of this? To reconcile the 45,000 iterations of Christianity that exist in our world today would be impossible, but all but two of them are Protestants, those two being the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the "two lungs" of Christinity as Pope St John Paul II called them.
Should Christians be working harder to obey Christ's command. Do may care much about this? What steps could be taken by various churches to work towards such a lofty goal.
We all know that it's a long way from a commitment by two Patriarchs to its existence in reality. At 71, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. However I am overjoyed that they are even talking about it. Of course, ever since the papacy of St John Paul II, such gestures and overtures have been made, but it seems to have reached a new level of commitment.
I think most Christians are conscious of the fact that we're all in breach of Christ's command that we should all be ONE, but do many Christians care much about any of this? To reconcile the 45,000 iterations of Christianity that exist in our world today would be impossible, but all but two of them are Protestants, those two being the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the "two lungs" of Christinity as Pope St John Paul II called them.
Should Christians be working harder to obey Christ's command. Do may care much about this? What steps could be taken by various churches to work towards such a lofty goal.
Comments
Patriarch Barholomew can speak for only a portion of Orthodox Christians (mainly those in Greece and a few in Turkey).
Rome giving up its claim of Papal Supremacy would help, as would accepting the ministry of women on an equal basis with men. Which is a slightly acerbic way of saying that divisions persist largely because there are things we each value more than unity.
On the other hand we have got to a level of unity in joint action in some places that is amazing.
Primarily, is the question of filioque. The Spirit proceeding from the Father. It is the issue that divided the church in the first place. I note Leo admited that it was not in the original document and was inserted by Pope Benedict in 1014 the official Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation have already agreed with the Orthodox position and are making moves to drop the clause in our denominational documents.
The Primacy of the Pope. Leo has not said much about this yet; but, given his ecumenical history, I do not think it is much of a step for him. It is the curia of the church that will move slowly on this. Ever since I was a seminarian, I have been taught we Lutherans could accept the Pope as a bishop among bishops. I think something like the World Council of Churches would be the structure other denominations can come together in unity.
As @Arethosemyfeet the modern issue is the role of women in the church. Anglicans and LWF Lutherans have no problem with women's full participation in the ministry. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox may take some time to reach parity, but I think there can be movement.
Attached to that are other gender identity issues.
We have come a long way in my lifetime. I look forward to seeing more fellowship among the denominations.
I’m not sure it’s a matter of people “valuing things more than unity,” as if they consider themselves to be able to change things, but are choosing not to. I think in many cases, it’s a matter of people believing that they literally can’t change the reality of those things as they understand them to be.
Some of this depends on definitions of Catholic and Protestant, just as a side note. Some of us in the Anglican crowd consider Anglicanism to be Catholic as well.
There are also the Coptic Christians.
Is unity something we work to achieve, or is it a gift we already have if we’d only recognize it?
Amen!
Source: Evidencia Biblica
Here in Wales I am a member of the "Commission of Covenanting Churches" which was set up by five major denominations 50 years ago with the aim of "complete structural unity". Since then both the church scene in general, and the ecumenical scene in particular, have changed beyond measure; a high point should have been the appointment of an Ecumenical Bishop in 2012 but this foundered. All these factors are leading us to seriously consider whether there is much point in continuing.
I'm not saying there aren't reasons for valuing those things.
I think that, in return for such a gestute, the East should adopt the Western date for Easter. While they could rightly say that their calendar is older, it's a matter of practicality. The Western date is accepted by the vast majority of the world.
As for Papal Infalibility as far back as Pope St John Paul II, he said that in any reunion of the churches, the Orthodox (and presumably other churches) couldn't be expected to embrace doctrines inovated after the split. Perhaps a return to the Bishop of Rome's position in the early Church, of primus inter pares, is an idea that could float.
On matters such as the role of women in the church, Amdany other issues, there would need to be a large area of agreeing to difffer as history rolls along. There is a very strong chance that the Archbisop of Canterbury designate, Dame Sarah Mullally will visit the Pope quite early in her tenure, and it will be interesting to see how she and the Pope interract. Healing the Great Schism of 1054, and the multifragmented Protestant schism of the 16th century would be a task of gargantuan proportions, and there would be many hold outs who would be unable to make the huge compromises necessary to achieve it, but we should all keep in mind that the Church is an affront to Christ in its multiplicity.
Which is why I always return to active cooperation and mutual respect being the way forward. And why I am astonished that so much progress has already been achieved during my 76 years.
Even then, it seems to me that many churches would, given the choice, be more likely to aim for unity by virtue of being the last ones standing.
I think there is a danger of only having in mind the "first world" when considering the future of the Church. While it continues to decline in the developed world, it continues to grow in Africa, for example. And red hot issues here in Europe are not the same across the globe.
While the African church is still growing, I doubt it will be too long before birth rates start to fall, with a knock-on effect on churches. In many countries church membership is already growing more slowly than the population.
I think generalising about continents in such a broad way is as unhelpful as terms like "developed"/"developing" and the Cold War 1st/2nd/3rd World terminology. Neither Europe nor Africa are monolithic in terms or development goals or in terms of adherence to Christianity. Nobody would suggest that South America or Asia are homogenously "developing" continents.
Iirc two of the countries with the healthiest (in terms of size) Christian populations are Brazil and ROK (Republic of Korea aka South Korea). Both are vastly different countries with different socio-economic circumstances.
The difference between most Eastern and Western Christians has to do with the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in the 1580s which aligned the calendar more closely with the actual Spring Equinox. Since the calendar was reformed in the wake of the Council of Trent by Pope Gregory XIII the Orthodox persisted with the older out of line Julian calendar untainted by ideas of possible papal supremacy. Pope Gregory also changed the date of the New Year from 25th March to 1st January.
(I always like the little detail that the Scottish Parliament decided in the early 1600s to accept the Gregorian calendar, as it made it easier to transfer former Crhristmas celebration from the popish Christmas to a more secular New Year. England on the other hand did not change to the Gregorian calendar until the late 1700s).
The ROK is not a good example for your point, as it's only about 31% Christian, as opposed to Brazil at 83%.
I think the "it" that is growing in Africa is more of a "they" - lots of different kinds of church and groups of churches, many of them getting on and doing their own thing. Including developing their own ecumenical discussions and movements.
I imagine many of them are looking forward to a time when they no longer get told what to do by a bunch of people living around the Mediterranean or further-flung reaches of the Northern Hemisphere.
In what ways do you think these churches would want to depart from the Northern Hemisphere's way of doing things?
I think the greater concern is from the Northern Hemisphere when the Southern Hemisphere has more clout. You should see the reactions I get in Lutheran circles when I mention looking forward to African missionaries coming to our shores.
I’m more inclined to look at what various Christians do — cooperation in feeding people, etc plus recognizing one another’s baptism. Speaking well of each other and pointing out the good to be seen in what each other does. Working together in evangelism, mission, materials development and publication, etc. A lot of this is already happening very quietly, it just doesn’t hit the secular news very often.
Well I had several shots at finding acceptable terminology. However my point remains, that while Christianity declines in the Northern Hemisphere, it grows in the Southern. And this effects the kinds of adjustment various churches might have to make to achieve
Sadly.
I agree with @LambChopped that the key is grassroots collaboration and mutual respect rather than decretals and statements from 'on high'.
I have much sympathy with @Baptist Trainfan's view that the independent and post-radical Reformation churches are often overlooked - quite apart from what one might call the post-1830s Protestant denominations - Churches of Christ, Plymouth Brethren etc.
Part of the problem there isn't so much that they are regarded as "heretickal conventicles" as the historic Churches don't really know 'where to start' when it comes to engaging with them.
When one hears about the antics of various Pentecostal and independent US style fundamentalist churches in majority RC or Orthodox countries then we can readily understand the hesitation. There are exceptions of course but both sides have to try harder and dig deeper in order to find common ground.
I still come across 'cradle Orthodox' who think that the Anglicans are simply an English-speaking version of themselves but who would regard Baptists and other independent Protestant churches as cultic or deluded.
But we have to start somewhere. Personal relationships are key.
I've seen a lot of pushback on several FB groups against the accord, many from Orthodox priests who seem to think the whole of Christendom, especially the Pope, should be grovelling on its belly in repentance for its schism. And of course that Bartholomew is a heretic to let it happen.
It brought a great joy to me that the two leaders made the effort. That they're willing to take a step in the direction of repairing a breach lasting more than a millennium. But they'll never take their flocks with them, which will be even harder on the Orthodox side.
So even if the Pope managed to remove the filioque and reinterpret Papal universal ordinary jurisdiction, Papal infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception as just formalities that don’t contradict Orthodox tradition, I don’t think you could get many Orthodox leaders outside of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and a few of the smaller, more Western autocephalous churches to be in favor of moving toward reunion because the only kind of reunion Russia and the hardcore conservative Orthodox want is for the RCC to capitulate on everything and remake itself in the image of Orthodoxy in every liturgical, aesthetic, and ecclesiological thing it can - perhaps even by letting a lot of the rest of the world be autocephalous so that the Roman Patriarchate wouldn’t outnumber the Eastern Churches in a hypothetical united church to a degree far greater than the Moscow patriarchate currently outnumbers the rest of Orthodoxy.
As someone who avidly wants to see a reunion of East and West, I wish I could be more hopeful than this.
I think @stonespring is pretty .u h on the money.
I think the 'Churches of Russian tradition' in the West would be more amenable than Moscow to possible rapprochement. I might even have envisaged Moscow changing its tune to some extent if Patriarch Kyrill was less of a Kremlin stooge.
Given the current schism in the Orthodox world I don't have a great deal of faith in our ability to heal our own wounds and divisions let alone patch things up with Rome, the Copts and other 'Oriental Orthodox' let alone the Protestant churches.
On a grass-roots and friendship level I can see things improving though.
@pablito1954 - there is a 'rebel monastery' on Mount Athos which considers Patriarch Bartholomew beyond the pale for his ecumenism and not a few monks in the other monasteries who'd take a similar line.
The Ecumenical Patriarch isn't a Pope, more like the Archbishop of Canterbury. At a parish level things pretty much tick over regardless of the kerfuffles at the top.
Aw, c'mon. Ya wanna deprive slack-ass local reporters' of the opportunity to do a second round of feel-good xmas stories in January?
A salutary reminder.
I was also reminded of the words of the hymn And now, O Father, mindful of the love:
Draw us the nearer, each to each, we plead, by drawing all to thee O Prince of Peace
Unity will ultimately come from drawing closer to Christ.
In more depth, for example, from Re-Imagining Ecumenical Theology in Africa: Toward Promoting the African Union Agenda 2063:
Brazilian missionaries have been treating Europe as a mission field for years.
The situation with the Orthodox is difficult. The mutual excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were lifted at the end of Vatican 2, decades ago. But as others have said this isn't always reflected in grass-roots attitudes.
Also I'm thinking about the way that people continue to set themselves up as small breakaway bodies and give themselves and their denominations extraordinary and highfalutin titles. It makes me think that there will never be one "fold."
And I'm wondering if there are parallels between discussions with the Orthodox (who do you discuss with that represents the whole movement) and increasingly with the Anglicans.
Sure but what does this mean in practice?
Beardy-wierdy Orthodox monks on Mount Athos think they are drawing closer to Christ by reciting the Jesus Prayer ad infinitum whilst remaining arsey about everyone else.
Young Earth Creationists think they are drawing closer to Christ by holding unfeasible positions on geology and paleontology.
Christian nationalists think they are drawing closer to Christ by promoting phyletism and xenophobia.
Heck, in the interests of balance, some uber-liberal Christians think they are drawing closer to Christ by undermining any semblance of traditional creedal Christianity...
How do we square any of those circles?
We can discuss why we think these things draw us closer to Christ, but surrendering things we believe are of Christ in the pursuit of visible unity is to get things backwards.
This is an interesting and disturbing thing to me.
It is like Milton Jones's cartoon: "I've been a Christian for over 40 years" Response: "How come you are still not very nice?"
All the groups mentioned above clearly have some sort of intense faith and you would perhaps hope that God would work through that in some sort of positive way. And yet it is not obvious that that is what happens, to put it mildly.
But why?