richard5za wrote:
John wrote:>> I really don't think so, Richard.
> There's a strong Catholic commitment to re-unification of
> Christianity.
> The smaller churches need the size of Catholicism to flourish.
> There is already a Catholic Lutheran accord of 2004
> The Orthodox churches are just as Catholic as the Roman
> Catholics. There is a minor difference in the Creed, and they have
> some small differences in canon law none of which are 'deal
> breakers' The differences on unification are political
> i.e. appointments of bishops and ultimate authority
> The Catholic negotiations with the Anglicans in the 90's broke
> down on appointment of bishops, not doctrinal issues.
> The current generation of Catholics are not as obedient as they
> were in yesteryear. There are lots of pressures for reform and
> change. For instance, there are already more than 100 women
> Catholic priests in Europe and USA and growing rapidly. They claim
> to be fully Catholic and that the Church's attempts to
> excommunicate or invalidate them are nul and void. And they
> attract large congregations!
> The Catholic Church is in crisis and pressures will mount. In the
> context of a growing union of Catholic type churches, (eg
> Lutherans plus Orthodox) it is easily possible that geographical
> autonomy of Catholism could develop to deal with regional issues,
> initially in full communion with Rome, but with autonomy growing
> over time. In this context the Pope as we currently know the Pope
> could be replaced by a committee from all the
> churches. Theologically speaking why does 'Peter's successor' have
> to be a single person? Why not a committee duly elected, as
> Peter's successor currently is?
> The "future of the Church, and the church of the future" subject
> is complex.
I guess I see your point, Richard, but I'm not sure what the point
would be. It's always possible to form another committee. We have
the mother of all committees, the United Nations, and we can argue how
much good it's done. The General Assembly seems pretty useless. The
Security Council sometimes gets things done, but that's because it's
not very democratic. So we might envision some new super-ecumenical
council, but the Orthodox patriarchs would never accept anything like
the Security Council that would put them into a position inferior to
the Pope.
I look at the situation a bit differently. It's true that Western and
Orthodox Christians are both Christian, but that's like saying that
they're both human. The doctrinal commonalities pale in significance
to the cultural differences. A Greek Orthodox can certainly never
become a Catholic, but just as important, he could never become a
Russian Orthodox either. A Catholic is a Catholic anywhere in the
world (in theory, anyway), but there's no such thing as a generic
"Orthodox." You have to be Orthodox PLUS something else.
I would suggest that the Pope would have better luck unifying with
another universal religion -- say, Buddhism or even Islam!
The other important point is that the generational trends that you
reference are artifacts of the Awakening eras, and are about to be
reversed. As the Crisis era progresses, those pressures for reform
will be subordinated to pleas for help to survive. After the war,
things will look very different for Catholics than they do today.
John