www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Ecumenical Patriarch Refutes "Double Unity".

Well, the report originated with RISU, so I think we better ask RISU to be a bit more careful next time.

As it is, the Russians are already accusing the UGCC of manipulating news to suit the latter's needs, and while we Catholics are firmly behind our Ukrainian brethren, incidents like this only lessen our side's credibility with the unconvinced.

For full disclosure, I had unwittingly played a role in spreading this news by posting the news from RISU on the Rorate Caeli blog, whence it spread to other Roman Catholic websites that normally don't pay attention to news from the East. Sorry.

Before anyone, on either side of the aisle, gets too worked up, let's take a deep breath and employ some perspective. There are few enough folks here too young to not have encountered - in both the secular and religious domains - instances of media reports that prove to be grossly inaccurate.

There is an old adage to the effect that "if it sounds too good to be true, it likely is not." Now, before I get jumped on - I do not happen to believe that this sounded "too good to be true" - but substitute "unlikely" for "good" and I'm right there. The likelihood that His All-Holiness propounded the idea of 'dual unity' in a posiitive light was, to my mind, more than a bit far-fetched, unless he had reached a point in his life when his plan for next month was to enter a monastery or take up the mantle of pastoring a small temple in the midst of nowhere.

Catholics who jumped with joy at the prospect were grasping at liturgical straws. Orthodox who recoiled in horror at the prospect were equally guilty of over-reacting.

And to both those who would have the initial press release be evidence of a Catholic conspiracy and to those (and, yes, they'll come along shortly), of the other persuasion, who will pronounce that it really was true - a trial balloon, which he eventually had to reel in, get over it and face the reality that Church unification will come about when the Holy Spirit descends and affords earthly hierarchs the necessary wisdom and understanding and faith, in themselves and their counterparts, to achieve it. Could it ever hope to come about in the manner suggested by the early press report? Maybe, dual communion existed in some places for prolonged periods after the much-touted "official" schism of 1054 and has been advanced since that time by such as Sayednah Elias Zoghby, of blessed memory. But this is not seemingly the time for it to happen and, clearly, there would be required an enormous prior effort involving prayer, dialogue, and practical groundwork.

There is a decided tendency on the part of some to seize on every instance of pastoral accomodation between the Churches as evidence of an immediately forthcoming union. We need to see those, instead, as a recognition between the respective parties of the importance to care for the spiritual well-being of their peoples and exercise the economia necessary to meet such by partnering with those of other Apostolic Churches that they understand as being of a spiritual mmind with their Church, regardless of the very real doctrinal issues that separate them.

By the same token, to dismiss - out of hand - the notion of everyday cooperation in worthwhile endeavors that do not threaten the integrity or independence of either Church, such as Mykhayl has suggested, suggests an entrenched attitude that those of the other Church are somehow less desirable folks with whom to associate, Shall we worry as to whose parking lot hosts the unified food fair? Will there be more glory in that than in being the owner of the parking lot in which the fair's attendees park?

In 40 years, I have yet to see anyone translate between Melkite Catholicism and Antiochian Orthodoxy on the basis of which parish makes better fatayah or uses more tomatoes in its tabboulah and I rather much doubt that it would be any different in a food cookoff between the Ruthenians, ACROD, and the OCA (otherwise, much of the population of southwestern NY and adjacent PA would be enrolled at St Michael's in Binghamton, just for the pirohi).

So, let us continue in brotherhood and sisterhood, praying for unity - because if any of you truly think that God wouldn't prefer it, you have a stange vision of Him and I'd prefer you not stand next to me in a lightning storm. But, keep in mind that unity will come at a price - for all involved and that it's not the equivalent of one of Rachel's 30 minute meals. It's more likely to be dessert for a multi-course meal of humble makings, served over decades, if not centuries.

Many years,

Neil

Could they not also cooperate together in building new "co used" churches, and their maintainance? it certainly would be much easier financially. Or is this too much to hope for?
Stephanos I

John, you completely misread my post. I was not mad about the Patriarch repudiating the story. I was mad a false story was published to begin with. I thought I was pretty clear. I am not hurt in the least by the patriarch's true position.

Thank you. It is so refreshing to read these words by a Catholic. It gives me hope for the future just when I was at the point of dispair. It is only in the spirit of truth and
honesty from both sided that we can move forward. I expect my church, the Orthodox Church to be honest too.

I am pleased that his holiness Bartholomew has not proposed something that would compromise the faith and unity of the Orthodox Church.

Joe

Had AsianPilgrim taken the time to read the RISU story, he/she would have noticed that in fact the RISU was re-posting a story which had been originaly posted by the German magazine KAT.net in June, 2008. Contrary to what AsianPilgrim states, the story did not origninate with the RISU.

http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;22800/

I.F.

Whoa Nelly, Jean Francois, Asianpilgrim has already apologized and eaten crow over this, you can let it go now!

Some of these postings are leading me into temptation. Uncharacteristically, perhaps, I refrained from any comment on the news report; my reason was that on previous occasions Bartholomew has emphatically refused any suggestion of "double communion" (even though we all know places where it exists). I found it incredible that he would make such a volte-face under such circumstances. So I kept quiet.

Temptation or not, this is no special merit of mine; I simply did not believe the report and therefore let nature take its course.

To those who are grieved (and there is good reason to be grieved) I can only recommend patience, prayer, persistence, and love. To those who are tempted to rejoice, I suggest an examination of conscience. Being satisfied with the status quo is not honestly Christian.

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father,

As has been reported here from time to time, there have been instances of this - although it is admittedly not common.

The best known case (because it got a lot of both positive and negative reaction at the time) involved a joint undertaking in Syria by the Melkite Catholics and Antiochian Orthodox. It was spurred by restrictive governmental policy vis-a-vis granting the requisite permits for a village in need of both temples, but limited to one by governmental edict. A generous donor underwrote much of the cost and the ongoing maintenance is shared by the two communities. Admittedly, the abiding goodwill between the two Churches generally, especially in the "Old World", and between the two Patriarchs involved in particular, was the deciding factor in this coming about.

Many years,

Neil

Orest,

I must admit, I wished the story was true. I am a Zoghby guy. i do yearn for unity. I had passed the story along on my blog, and of course, had to remove it when it was discovered to be false. I was embarrassed to have highlighted it.

But I respect this patriarch greatly. I did not experience a personal sense of disappointment when the story was found to be false. I very much respect and understand why the Orthodox on this forum would have problems had this story been true.

After reading Sergius Bulgakov's the Orthodox Church, I understand that there are great differences between the ecclessiology of Orthodoxy and Rome. Bulgakov explains the differences between the way the two churches understand external authority and why in his view no one can be THE vicar of Christ on earth. He greatly values sobornost.

Yet, I think Fr. Serge is correct in saying that we should grieve our divisions, the broken body of Christ. We should always be praying and seeking unity.

I would hope all of the Apostolic Churches at least, would be able to achieve Eucharistic unity.

Blessings,

Lance

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

AMEN

BOB

Deacon Richard,

With all due respect, the Ecumenical Council of Florence is indeed an infallible ecumenical council for all of Catholicism, not simply the West. A council cannot be ecumenical, is my understanding, for only part of the Church, but not the entire Church.

Second Vatican Council, in Lumen Gentium, explicitly reaffirms the ecumenical authority of both Florence and Trent, and puts them on an even par with Second Nicaea. That clearly shows, I believe, that the filioque is obviously an infallible, de fide, article of faith for all Catholics, and is on an even par with inconodule.

This is also further supported by the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law in conjunction with its authoritative amendments stemming from the 1998 issuing of the apostolic letter Ad Tuendem Fidem.

As an aside, I would also say, for what it's worth, that I believe that the theological idea that a certain monarchial majesty accrues solely to the Father is not a contradiction with filioque.

Patriarch Bartholomew's position seems perfectly reasonably and understandable from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Best to all,
Robster

Hence, the reasons that Eastern Catholics, imho, need to decide are they Orthodox Or Roman Catholic. The so called bridge, has no legs. Rhetoric, is not reality! I know I see numerous people on this forum and others tha speak of the Zogbhy Initiative...In theory, I would accept it and actually believed and lived it long before the initative was set forth I believe in 1996. The reality is Rome has put itself into a box with infalible dogma, (whether through their additional "ecumenical councils", so called, or their "papal infallibility"...I see the unia as a hinderance to true Church Unity rather than a help. As long as there are Eastern Catholics (I use the term as those united with Rome), running around saying we can accept these creations even if we say we do not agree with them, Rome will not see the error of its ways.

Job, good points.

Joe