www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What More is Required for Unity?

A quote from Patriarch Lubomyr from the bottom right corner of http://www.archeparchy.ca/

What More is Required for Unity?

Speaking on the Divine Eucharist at the Eleventh General Congregation of the Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar said: �My premise is that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the life and the mission of the Church. But this is also true for Oriental Churches! [Therefore] if the Liturgy is a 'regula fidei' ('lex orandi, lex credendi'); if the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Oriental Churches in communion with the See of Rome, and by Orthodox or Apostolic Churches, is identical; if there is mutual recognition of the apostolic succession of bishops and, consequently, of priests that celebrate the Eucharist, then my question is: what more is required for unity? Is there perhaps another 'fons' or another 'culmen' superior to the Eucharist? And if not, why isn't con-celebration permitted?� (excerpt).

Give me a break already!
How many times do the Orthodox have to say it:
first we must have unity of faith and then and only then can there be inter-communion.

Sadly, the Divine Liturgy celebrated by the Catholic Orientals and non-Catholic Orientals are NOT identical. Take a look at the Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church to it's non-Catholic counterpart.
Also, slight unneeded (yet persisting) differences in the Syro-Malankara Liturgy compared to its Orthodox counterpart. For example: The Catholic priest does not cover his head while the Orthodox does. The Catholic liturgy uses unleavened bread, the Orthodox does not. The Catholic Liturgy eliminated the Orthodox formula of breaking - including the cutting of the Body into various placements dependent on Feasts and Saints Days, the elimination of the splattering of the Precious Blood over the broken Body uniting the Body and Blood. The elimination by Catholics of the golden spoon used by the Orthodox. Elimination of the eating unconsecrated but blessed bread and drinking of water after receiving Communion by the Catholic form. Near complete elimination of the permanent deaconate by both the Orthodox and Catholic liturgies. Lack of married, non-celibate priests celebrating the Liturgy in Catholic Churches (except for a handful of converts and first received priests). The elimination of the Solemn Triple Mass celebrated by the Orthodox Church at High Solemn Days.

Such Churches need to be challenged by their own people who know what the alterations are. It needs to be done often and clearly in areas where people connected with these Churches will see it and take up the cry to restore the genuine article. I notice the Catholic Malankara bishops dont wear the red cassocks like the Orthodox do and wear the hood like veils and thats just the window dressing.

Miller,

Instead of just repeating a statement verbatim, how would you propose that this goal be reached? Should there be any give and take from both sides or are you indicating that the concessions to achieve this goal should be given only by one of them?

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Unity? Why not? But how? By us the Orthodox Christians forgeting about the true foundations of faith? Orthodoxy is how Christianity started from its beginning. Pure. So why not the other "branches" of christianity leave behind all the heresies and reunite with us? Why not the pope finally admits that he is just another patriarch like so many others? Why not the Pope to finally admits that he is just another person and that he is not "correct" at all matters. Why not the roman catholics restore the one true Creed and they still keep a Creed that an emperor and a Pope decided. Why not they condemn the acts which caused the loss of so much blood throughout the ages (even of christians). Greek Orthodox Christians did not want to accept the Pope as the head of their church even when Constantinople was about to fall (even if their emperor Manuel Paleologus wanted to do such a treason). So it is very simple. Leave the heresy behind and reunite with the correct dogma (orthodoxy). We are not going to do one step futher from where we are because we haven't done so since the beginning.

Dear Friends,

Certainly, what Patriarch Lubomyr has said relates to the issues of faith that still need to be settled before full communion and full Communion can be celebrated.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly acclaim Father Anthony for his truly tremendous depth and breadth of Christian love and vision - without, at the same time, compromising in ANY way his deep commitment to Orthodox Christianity.

A future union council could address what divides us, as we've said here many times.

But in advance of that, we could also reflect on what divides us and strive to come to mutual understandings that could speed up the process.

For example, when the Orthodox/Oriental ecumenical commission completed its findings on a theological level (and on that level they discovered their theological unity) with the recommendation that their respective Churches move to agree on ways to achieve FULL unity, a number of OCA parishes went ahead and began, for example, dropping the names of certain Oriental Orthodox teachers and saints from the anathemas commemorated on the First Sunday of the Great Fast. They also began to foster closer relations with neighbouring Oriental parishes to come to a greater appreciation of their traditions - even though the realization of full unity is currently bogged down over the status of the 4th Council and the other three.

As an EC, I believe it is truly incumbent upon Eastern Catholics to fully recover their Eastern Orthodox heritage in traditions, liturgy, canonical life AND theology.

On the level of theology, and apart from the role of the papacy, is there ONE thing that divides Eastern Catholics and Orthodox today?

Do we still acknowledge differences between us with respect to Triadology? Mariology? Eschatology? Liturgical traditions?

I would say, "no" - those times are long gone.

And, in Ukraine at least, the UGCC is working VERY closely with the autocephalous Orthodox Ukrainian Churches (that are not recognized by world Orthodoxy at any rate).

Our brother, Miller, is a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada and I have several relatives who are as well.

In fact, it was only until recently that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada was recognized as canonical by world Orthodoxy (and the Moscow Patriarchate does still grumble about that recognition, saying the UOCC isn't somehow "fully" Orthodox and still clings to the autocephalous tradition of Basil Lipkyvsky).

But the fact is that Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism is being achieved on the ground, among the hierarchs and parishes in Ukraine and in North America.

In the situation in which Ukraine finds itself at least, there is no room for a religious triumphalism on either side.

As the ancestor of our beloved Bishop Vladyka Isidore Borecky wrote to St George Konissky of Belarus, "When they are in the heat of an argument, the Poles call us (Eastern Catholics) as well as you (Orthodox) - 'schismatics.'"

Historically, we EC's share the title of "schismatic" with the Orthodox - an injustice in both cases perpetrated by a formerly triumphalist Roman Catholic hierarchy in Eastern Europe (and that triumphalism still persists in certain quarters).

For my part, the pain of separation is even more acute as it divides my ancestral people. We share so much in common religiously and culturally - we are identical save in the fact that we have different hierarchies that are out of communion with one another.

To be one in so many ways and yet NOT be in communion with one another is truly PAIN, my friends and I say this to all posters on this Forum who may see ecumenism largely as only a matter of settling religious differences.

In Ukraine, the Ukrainian church leaders are moving ahead to forge closer ties, including the publishing of a common Bible bearing all their approvals (it is a remarkable Bible, with the Orthodox Canon of the Old Testament with the additional books the Roman Canon does not have - and it also has the additional "imprimatur" of the primate of the Roman Catholic Church of Ukraine!!).

This is the milieu from which Patriarch Lubomyr speaks.

I have come to admire the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox greatly, despite their divisions amongst themselves.

I remember a time when Ukrainian Catholic bishops had a problem referring publicly to Patriarch Joseph the Confessor as such - but the Ukrainian Orthodox bishops had no such problem and, at public functions, would frequently repeat the title "Patriarch" in reference to him while our bishops remained silent - yes, that too was ecumenism at its best!

I believe the walls of separation are collapsing in certain circles at the local level. In Ukraine, this is also being led by our respective Ukrainian hierarchs, whether we choose to acknowledge this or not.

For Ukrainian Orthodoxy, to be "Orthodox" was and is never enough.

One also must be "Ukrainian" in the best sense of the word.

And in that respect, to be "Ukrainian" and to be united with those who share that same religious/cultural identity is to also feel the pull of a truly ecumenical rapprochement.

Alex

He answered his own questions. There isn�t mutual recognition of apostolic succession and the way the liturgy is celebrated isn�t the same. Add to that the fact that there isn�t unity of faith and I think you can understand why there isn�t con-celebration.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Actually, I know our Primate quite well - and it was certainly not his intention to answer his own questions on this matter!

He is looking at it from a perspective different from that of Orthodoxy, but he is being sincere in asking the question.

Alex

I believe he is being sincere. Perhaps his questions aren't directed to Orthodoxy, but to some in his own church.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

His questions ARE directed toward Orthodoxy.

I'm not arguing whether he is right or wrong - only trying to address his perspective which I'm sure is rejected outright by Orthodoxy.

Alex

The Malankara Bishops do where the red cassocks like the Orthodox - there is a custom in place that the highest ranking hierarch wears the red, while others do not in his presence. Here the website of the Malankara Catholic Church [malankara.net] , although the photo on the bottom was taken before the elevation of it's prelate to Catholicos.

Then I fall back on not understanding his questions. The Eucharist is unity of faith, and it doesn't exist between the two sides. That is why there isn't con-celebration.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Perhaps he has another understanding by "unity of the faith."

Met. Andrew Sheptytsky and Patriarch Josef the Confessor had a similar understanding when they both said, "There are no substantial differences between our (Orthodox and Catholic) Churches."

Perhaps they were all relativists, as our former poster here, Brendan the Navigator, used to say?

Alex

No, certainly I would not say men such as those were idiots. To say there are or aren�t substantial differences however is of course to use a term given to a fair amount of subjectivity. What may not be substantial to them, may be substantial to someone coming from an Orthodox perspective.

I believe there are substantial differences, which is why there isn�t unity of faith which is why there isn�t con-celebration of the Eucharist. Personally, I think it is both wrong to over and under play these differences. Nobody ultimately is served by that except the most partisan on either side.

Andrew