www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog

Yeah, but that's how the Orthodox roll. Remember, most of the existing autocephalous Churches had highly irregular beginnings, and in many instances, their canonical status was not recognized for years, sometimes for decades. If a major Orthodox Church decided to open communion with the Church of Rome, the rest of Orthodoxy might howl, but as long as the people of that Church stood by their hierarchs, eventually--one Church at a time--the rest of Orthodoxy would recognize the fait accompli. They might not restore communion with Rome themselves, but they would restore communion with the Orthodox Church that restored communion with Rome, thus entering the state of "mediate communion" (A is not in communion with B, but B is in communion with C who is in communion with A, therefore A and B are in communion through C) that was so common in the first millennium.

Eastern Catholic Churches have some strange beginnings too, but the issue is not the origins of the various Churches but agreement in faith. Do the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church agree about the faith? My Orthodox friends tell me that they do not agree with Rome, and in fact that is why some of them are Orthodox Christians today instead of Roman Catholics.

Postscript: I would add that Rome's ecclesiology is not ancient. The idea that one bishop has universal jurisdiction and can teach infallibly without the consent of the Churches is certainly not a patristic or biblical idea.

But why would an Orthodox Church want to come into communion with Rome while it teaches things that Orthodox Christians reject as false?

For any one Orthodox Church to do that, which sounds a lot like what both Orthodoxy and Rome rejected in the Balamand Statement, would only sow discord among Orthodox Christians. You would end up with more uniate Churches, and that is about it.

Quite frankly, I look forward to the day when the uniate Churches cease to exist because they have been reunited with the Mother Churches. I don't want to see new uniate Churches created by the fracturing of Orthodoxy.

Dear Todd,

You are, of course, quite correct. The EC Churches are a temporary arrangement intended to end in a reunion with their mother Orthodox Churches.

The problem with the UGCC is that we appear to have more than one such mother at the present time . . .

Alex

Dear Todd,

Now I'm confused here.

You belong to an "Orthodox Church" which you say is the Melkite Church.

The Melkite Church is in communion with Rome (last time I looked).

So you are yourself living the idea that an Orthodox Church can be legitimately in communion with Rome and . .. still be Orthodox.

Over to you sir!

Alex

It is one of the paradoxes of being an Eastern Catholic. Do I - or should any Eastern Catholic - view the uniate status of the Eastern Catholic Churches as the model for communion between Rome and the various Orthodox Churches? No. In fact, our uniate status is a problem. One could say that we are not a bridge to communion between Rome and Orthodoxy, but an obstacle along the way that will have to be removed at some point. I see the existence of the Melkite Catholic Church as temporary, while the goal is really reunion with our mother Orthodox Church.

Postscript: That goal (i.e., reunion of Melkites with our mother Church) will only come about in my opinion when Rome abandons its innovations and returns to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers.

Dear jjp,

In fact, the answer to your original question lies in Rome's current attitude to the entire idea of any Orthodox church or group of Orthodox coming into formal communion with it.

Rome rejects the idea entirely and her policy is that reunion will be achieved with the entire Orthodox world - or not at all.

Balamand et alia.

I had occasion to speak to some very highly placed RC administrators, all bishops, who told me plainly that things would be wonderful for the ecumenical situation if the Ukrainian Catholics would either reunite with Orthodoxy or cease to exist as a "Particular Church."

I couldn't believe my ears.

Alex

Alex

Dear Todd,

I couldn't agree more - and I daresay the way you've put it is the way both Rome and Orthodoxy, at the official theological-discussion level, would understand it.

But isn't it more than just about status?

How can you yourself, since you brought up the issue in your responses to Stuart and jjp, consider yourself to be Orthodox and a member of a Church that is in communion with Rome, whose doctrines Orthodoxy disagrees with?

I understand about the uniate status thingy. This forum, over the years, has done it to death (which is a good thing).

I'm asking YOU, sir, how you understand being "Orthodox" and a member of a Church which is Greek-Catholic.

You further raised, more than once, the notion that Orthodoxy cannot be in communion with Rome since the two do not share the same doctrines and, implicitly, you affirmed that unity can therefore not be had until perfect unity of the faith can be established.

When did you, as an Orthodox Christian, and your Melkite Church, established perfect unity of Orthodox faith with Rome that you should be in communion with it?

Also, by remaining in an EC Church, are you not YOURSELF maintaining an ongoing excommunication/separation between yourself and Orthodoxy?

You also mentioned "realities." OK, what about the reality of one being an Orthodox Christian ONLY when one is formally a member of an Orthodox Church in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches.

IF you say that you are Orthodox, but do not belong to a Church that is recognized as Orthodox by Orthodoxy itself, then how are you Orthodox?

Are you not then open to the charge of being "liberal" and "indifferent" since you have yourself created a version of being Orthodox which cannot be such since you are, truth be told, outside of REAL communion with Orthodoxy.

Or is your Orthodoxy an unreal construct (I'll call it "Orthodox in communion with Rome")?

You are a scholar who is dedicated to the search for Truth - I know you are.

Where in any of the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodoxy Church do you have the right to declare yourself truly "Orthodox" and be out of "real communion" with Orthodoxy? Where in any of the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church can you justify being in communion with Rome via an EC Church? Where in the same Councils and the teaching of Orthodoxy do you establish a right to be Orthodox but separated from Orthodoxy as evidenced by your inability to receive Communion in an Orthodox Church?

I'm going to bed now . . . (And I'm not trying to push you over the edge just so another Orthodox bishop would congratulate me on bringing yet another great convert to him . . .).

Alex

There are numerous example of Greek Catholics and Orthodox sharing the cup, often out of necessity, in the Middle East. Do a quick google search and you'll find plenty of evidence. Then, let all of the churches know that the schism must begin!


There are so many tangents, I'm only going to address the ones that directly relate to the conversation. Framing a discussion within a hypothetical scenario isn't "fantasy" - it's a productive method of discerning thruths. I shouldn't have to explain that. If it's a hypothetical that doesn't match your reality and is therefore not worth talking about, kindly refrain, and I'll be happy to talk about it with anybody willing to indulge.


So do I, what does that have to do with anything? I feel like you are talking to somebody other than myself, because most of what you are saying has no application to the topic.

Click here [scoba.us], let me know if you have any questions. Forgive me if you haven't met any of these people.

A good interview by Fr. Taft here [catholicworldreport.com]. I'm sure he's considered the impact of liturgical innovation in the church.

I'd really like to stick to what my original comment was about - "what would happen if". Why you or I might imagine these people want to do this is best left for a separate thread.

Do your priests scoot into the church on roller skates? Because they are in communion with Rome and all that comes with that?

That is the most ecumenical thing to say and they are well to say it.

I simply wonder aloud how long the Catholic and many of the Orthodox churches will let one church gum up the works.

I agree, but some of the Mother churches are Catholics and it's the Orthodox replacement that should technically cease to exist. In the case of the Melkites especially, who's bishops all went Catholic, and were replaced by Constantinople because the decision was not accepted by the super-Bishop across the way who cites Canon 28.
Some would say that one Church that's "gumming" are the Latins, others the Russians, the Russians would say the Estonians or EP, the entire EO would say the OO, while the Syriacs would say the Indians, the Armenians for a time themselves, the Assyrians still haven't figured out how to get back together regarding the calendar they now share - let alone Rome - which they agree has primacy and jurisdiction according to their own canons, etc.

That's the question right there? Why? Lets look at the number one proponent, the EP. What does he have to gain?