A possible step towards unity?

[Mickey]

Interesting. I was unaware of this. It is not a practice I’ve seen used.

I have seen it at a couple monasteries…I am guessing it is the traditional practice of Mt Athos.

 

[FrancisB]

The cat is already out of the bag to a degree. There are Orthodox who have basically permitted entire Episcopalian communities into the fold. The “Antiochean” Church comes to mind. Those are the Orthodox who are most likely to attend a reconstituted traditional Latin mass. From there, the thing spreads. But you are correct certainly - most individuals will be Latins going East, and that is related to the comment you made about why Orthodox tend not to go west, though this may change in English speaking countries over the course of the next generation. It may also change in Russia, depending on whether the episcopate acts courageously on moral issues facing the west.

It’s funny that you should mention this, because this is what I was thinking as well. Catholics are often hopeful of some reconciliation and then discouraged by the response that they get from the Orthodox of the Slavic traditions. The Greeks are fairly neutral on the matter, and the Antiochians are generally fairly open. Of course, the See of Antioch was in communion with Rome until much later than the others. From what I’ve seen and heard, the Maronites and the Antiochians make little to no distinction and give each other communion as though there were no schism. If this plan formulated by the OP were to work, it would be best to talk to the Antiochian Orthodox first and then the Greeks. The Russians (and that includes the OCA) will come along when they are forced to, and not a moment sooner.

That said, it is important to recognise that it is the Slavic tradition that has repeatedly protected the rights of the Latin bishops, and ensured that Orthodox bishops are not named for the same city as any Latin bishop. On some level, this seems to me to suggest that they are ready to take us back whenever we are ready to come back. They just aren’t interested in discussing, debating, or compromising. I’ve heard some Orthodox quip that there is no schism, just a vacant patriarchate because of heresy, but so long as they haven’t appointed an Orthodox bishop for Rome, I don’t think they really mean it.

One might start to wonder, however, why we find it acceptable to appoint Catholic bishops to Sees already held by an Orthodox bishop. If we are actually committed to unification, we should see the problem with the OP from the first: there shouldn’t be a Catholic bishop of A and an Orthodox bishop of A, because there should be one bishop for each city. Until we as Catholics stop acting like this is an acceptable means to conduct ourselves, we aren’t really committed to reunion.

 

[jwinch2]

One might start to wonder, however, why we find it acceptable to appoint Catholic bishops to Sees already held by an Orthodox bishop. If we are actually committed to unification, we should see the problem with the OP from the first: there shouldn’t be a Catholic bishop of A and an Orthodox bishop of A, because there should be one bishop for each city. Until we as Catholics stop acting like this is an acceptable means to conduct ourselves, we aren’t really committed to reunion.

Fair point, though that cuts both ways also with respect to Orthodox moving into places which have been traditionally Roman Catholic.

 

[TrueLight]

When I visited the OCA church, someone who didn’t know me at all but knew I was a visitor, brought me a piece of antidoron bread on the way back from communion and she said “welcome”.

I felt so accepted.

 

[dvdjs]

Surely you have not intentionally derailed a thread about unity…to begin a debate about forced conversions? :tsktsk:

Sorry to be so late getting back to this. In general, motivations are not appropriate content, but since the suspicion has been raised - complete with finger wagging - I feel that I should respond.

I, of course, have no interest in derailing a conversation on unity. Probably more than anyone else who posts here, the lack of unity is a major issue and hardship in my life. Indeed my post was not to derail the thread but reprises a theme that I think is extremely important in the cause of unity.

The biggest barrier to unity is a lack of love - which, I think, is borne of a sense of grievance cultivated from a tendentious and highly mythologized sense of history. While all are susceptible to this problem, it seems to be endemic to new Orthodox in America. This idea is not original to me, of course. A thread that I started on this subject was inspired by a lecture by Fr Robert Taft on Orthodox Constructions of the West.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6806907&postcount=1

And again, in another thread more excerpts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6808210&postcount=23

Key quotes:

Orthodoxy needed to undertake its own examination of conscience and adopt a less polemic view of history

[progress to unity] continued to be plagued by failure to accept and confront respective responsibility for “a dolorous past.” … Fr. Taft pointed to the need for steps like abandoning “selective histories” and adopting “shared history” that would be based on common hermeneutic principles.

This idea is also promoted by some Orthodox. I had also started a thread on Fr. David Bentley Hart’s “The Myth of Schism”, with the idea that his call is like that of Fr Taft: to stop the historical revisionism and myth-making that consolidates rather than heals schism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7946075&postcount=1

Here’s is an impassioned comment on the same problem from an EO:

Orthodoxy is not neo-Palamism, it’s not “gnosticism”, it’s not about “phronema”, it’s not being anti-scholastic, anti-Thomist, anti-Augustinian, anti-Western. You’ll find all that on the Ortho blogs ad nauseum. But most Orthodox, the ones that haven’t been infected by “convertitis”, don’t pay any attention to that. They’re far away from that kind of theological pablum. Using your mind here means knowing that fact and looking, very carefully, at what’s being said or written.

Doing so, one finds Romanides, ( a favorite among converts), to be accurately described by D.B. Hart as dyspeptic. Yannaras an interesting philosopher whose work is marred by an atrocious incomprehension of the Western Middle Ages, Popovich, recently canonized, a horrible example of how someone simply can’t understand people right across the river, etc;etc;. But these folks, while influential, don’t represent the whole picture and their influence wanes as soon as one really examines the facts. But the problem is that people believe that what they believe is true because they believe it not because it’s true.

So my discussion of some unpleasant elements in the real, unmythologized history of the EOs, is part of what I think - with Taft, and Hart, and others - is necessary for progress on unity. And if that brings vitriol, that is not my intention at all. As I have said before:

[abandoning selective histories] might start with the now: the present times and recent past; it might start with the acknowledgment of complicity in the brutal liquidation of Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Europe and acceptance of the desire of this Greek Catholics, when free to choose, to re-establish their Church. My experience at CAF: every request for this acknowledgment is tacitly refused.

And this time? No difference.

 

[dvdjs]

One other important point. My post was a response to one that contained this stuff:

If anyone wonders why Eastern Catholic bishops are not in communion right now with Orthodox bishops, that is the reason. They ‘broke faith’ by admitting Roman Catholic bishops to their Holy Eucharist long ago. They thus at the time cut themselves off from the rest of Orthodoxy. Their excommunication was a matter of necessity. [Of course the rest is history, we know that in the intervening years the Eastern Catholic body of bishops was gradually formed along Latin lines, and taught Latin theology, and now they have had the CCEO imposed upon them. Today they are not considered Orthodox bishops in any fashion whatever.]

It should be noted also that even when an informal or ‘under the table’ exception is made to commune lay RC in an Orthodox temple, it is almost always believed to be a practicing Eastern Catholic, not a practicising Latin Catholic, who is allowed this privilige. This is probably because they are perceived to beleve the same as Orthodox, and the seperation is more of an issue of church politics for Eastern Catholics, than of belief.

Obviously there is a big contradiction here. Eastern Catholics are perceived - albeit by informal or “under the table” exception - to be have the same beliefs as Orthodox, from whom they are divided by politics; at the same time their excommunication was necessary because of serious matters of Orthodox faith, which their bishops have lost.

Now, what is the truth? We don’t have to think about reception to Eastern Catholics in Slovakia to discern the matter. We can ask: what happened in America? Here is a recent post on byzcath from an ACROD member:

I had always been taught that when the ACROD schism occurred there was no defining moment of ‘accepting Orthodoxy’ but rather a practical realization that one had left the Greek Catholic faith and one was no longer in union with the Pope of Rome. For those who kept the ‘property’, one Sunday the Pope was commemorated, the next he was not. As for those who ‘lost’ the church property, when they voted with their feet and set up their own church - another Bishop - or at first even no Bishop was commemorated. So be it. That was all.

None of the priests who followed Bishop Orestes were rebaptized or reordained. Bishop Orestes was consecrated as an Orthodox Bishop at the Phanar by the Ecumenical Patriarch and two other members of his synod… Nor in 1966 was Father John Martin “re-anything-ed” at all. He came to Johnstown, was invested as an Archmandrite in the summer of 1966 … and he was consecrated as an Orthodox Bishop later that year by the late Archbishop Iakovos and two other bishops at the Greek Cathedral in New York.

As far as I know that was also the situation fifty years prior to that when St. Alexis was received into Orthodoxy along with the first wave of those who knowingly entered into schism with the Greek Catholic Church. (Likewise for the countless priestly ‘flip-floppers’ of that era who switched ‘sides’ as seemingly often as day turns into night - Greek Catholic one week, Orthodox the next and Greek Catholic again! Including one priest who switched, became an Orthodox priest, then Bishop and returned to die in the Catholic faith.

The *theory *of reception is of academic interest; the mind of the church, however, is manifest in its practice. This is reality - a reality that cannot be ignored - especially, if you please, on an Eastern Catholic forum. The reality is that the first paragraph of the quoted post is clearly falsified by Orthodox practice. But so is the second paragraph: not one bit of this history was exceptional, informal, or under the table.

The good news:

The picture for unity is much brighter that many internet EOs - especially those selling polemical histories - might allow. The mutual recognition of our de facto if not de jure unity remains, but, in recent years, it has taken on a much more cooperative and mutually supportive tone. You can read BCC or ACROD newspapers and newsletters to see of joint activities between our jurisdictions. More amazingly, the recent development of the BCC’s Christ the Bridegroom Monastery was done with a great deal of support from the OCA’s Holy Myrrh-bearers monastery. And nuns from the latter institution participated - really participated - in the Life Profession of Sister Celeste as a Stavrophore Nun in the Parma Cathedral.

christthebridegroom.blogspot.com/
denisphotography.com/Events/Life-Profession-of-Sister/20265013_xfVt6T#1602133412_5sF6RKv

So to the OP, and others. Don’t let the nay-sayers get you down. The wind blows where it will.

 

[5Loaves]

It depends. Many parishes allow it…as an economia. Some very traditional/conservative parishes and monasteries reserve the antidoran only for the Orthodox faithful who did not receive Holy Communion (and who have honored the same fasting preparation as those who received the Eucharist).

For this reason when I am going to DL in an Orthodox Church I fast as if I were receiving Eucharist, although I won’t, but I might receive antidoran from a parishioner, and will have some when I go up to kiss the hand Cross.

In my EC parish we do bring antidoran to those who don’t go up for Eucharist.

 

[FrancisB]

Fair point, though that cuts both ways also with respect to Orthodox moving into places which have been traditionally Roman Catholic.

While this is true to a certain extent, there is a difference. The Western Rite diocese were carefully named to be in old Sees that had ceased to be used in the Catholic Church to avoid the overlapping of any hierarchy. You will find, for instance, that the Orthodox bishop that lives in Paris does not claim to be the Bishop of Paris (which is a Catholic See), but the Bishop of Saint-Denis, which has not been used by the Catholic Church for centuries. That may be a largely ceremonial gesture, but it is one that matters in church politics.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Actually the OCA’s forebarrer was the first Orthodox juristiction in North America.

When the Bolsheviks took control of the Church in Russia they also made a grab for the arm of the Church in Russia, but the Patriarch, St. Tikhon granted permission to all Russian Churches outside of Russia to break off communication with the Mother Church until it was possible to resume communication. This led to the birth of both ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (later renamed OCA). This power grab also led to the various Orthodox ethnicities already established in the Americas to send home for their own bishops.

Orthodox juristictional practice in North America is in a sad state, and is sadly a holdover from the Soviets that just won’t die.

Okay, thanks for the explanation!

Absolutely. Anyone may partake of the antidoron.

At the veneration everyone present including non Orthodox are welcome to take a piece.

It depends. Many parishes allow it…as an economia. Some very traditional/conservative parishes and monasteries reserve the antidoran only for the Orthodox faithful who did not receive Holy Communion (and who have honored the same fasting preparation as those who received the Eucharist).

Okay, I feel like I’m getting mixed signals, so if I ever visit an Orthodox Divine Liturgy I’ll play it by ear. If they say I can have antidoron and/or offer it, I’ll partake; otherwise, I’ll refrain.

 

[Mickey]

Okay, I feel like I’m getting mixed signals, so if I ever visit an Orthodox Divine Liturgy I’ll play it by ear. If they say I can have antidoron and/or offer it, I’ll partake; otherwise, I’ll refrain.

Most parishes will allow it through economia. But if you attend an Orthodox Monastery…it may be best to play it by ear.

 

[jwinch2]

While this is true to a certain extent, there is a difference. The Western Rite diocese were carefully named to be in old Sees that had ceased to be used in the Catholic Church to avoid the overlapping of any hierarchy. You will find, for instance, that the Orthodox bishop that lives in Paris does not claim to be the Bishop of Paris (which is a Catholic See), but the Bishop of Saint-Denis, which has not been used by the Catholic Church for centuries. That may be a largely ceremonial gesture, but it is one that matters in church politics.

How do you explain the Western Rite Orthodox then?
westernorthodox.com/western-rite

I’m not trying to start a thing here. I’m merely suggesting that both sides are guilty of poaching in each other’s patch.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

… it is important to recognise that it is the Slavic tradition that has repeatedly protected the rights of the Latin bishops, and ensured that Orthodox bishops are not named for the same city as any Latin bishop.

Really? How so? And what about Pittsburgh?

Please, I highlight this not to be overtly argumentative, but the statement quoted above is largely inconsisent with the experience of Eastern Catholic Churches of the so-called “Slavic tradition”, especially here in the US, where we weren’t exactly welcomed with open arms when the immigrants first came over …

 

[paglione]

12/20/2011
My reply to Marcus Andreas-
I think your idea is a good one and has considerable merit. I think it may very well work at the level which you propose. Both the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are true Apostolic Churches with valid priests, valid sacraments, and teach basically the same Christianity. THEY SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED ANY LONGER.
You speak about the bottom-up. That may work. Recently, as a Roman Catholic I attended a Greek Orthodox Liturgy. Prior to the Liturgy I asked the pastor if I, as a Roman Catholic, could receive the Eucharist. He asked me one question: “Did I believe that the Eucharis is the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ”. When I replied “Yes” he said he would have no objection to receive the Eucharist. I have tried this at another Orthodox church but I did not receive permission to receive the Eucharist.
But I believe this is the level of Catholic-Orthodox relation of which you speak.
It will work.
Peter D. Aglione, Hawthorne, NY, 10532 USA
Petradom737@aol.com

 

[dcointin]

For this reason when I am going to DL in an Orthodox Church I fast as if I were receiving Eucharist, although I won’t, but I might receive antidoran from a parishioner, and will have some when I go up to kiss the hand Cross.

In my EC parish we do bring antidoran to those who don’t go up for Eucharist.

I know I can seem argumentative here, but I’m actually a big supporter of dialogue and eventual reunion.

I attended a Ruthenian parish once, and after the liturgy I went forward to venerate the blessing cross and kissed the priest’s hand - that seemed to surprise him! I received the antidoron as well.

 

[dcointin]

Most parishes will allow it through economia. But if you attend an Orthodox Monastery…it may be best to play it by ear.

There are Orthodox monasteries that wouldn’t commune me either since I was received into Orthodoxy by chrismation, not baptism.

 

[FrancisB]

How do you explain the Western Rite Orthodox then?
westernorthodox.com/western-rite

I’m not trying to start a thing here. I’m merely suggesting that both sides are guilty of poaching in each other’s patch.

No, I think you misunderstand me; I didn’t say that the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches was the problem, nor the existence of Western Orthodox Churches. Both of these have as their origin an attempt at resolving the schism, which has not yet been fully realised. It is regrettable, but understandable.

I said the problem is the duplication of the hierarchy, which suggests an ecclesiology of two churches, rather than one church in trouble. The ancient tradition was that one city could only have one bishop. Although we have lost this, and in places there is overlapping Catholic hierarchs of different rites (again, acting as though the church is not one), the message that this sends to the Orthodox is quite clear: we may respect the validity of your priests and sacraments, but not the authority of your bishops. I don’t suspect that this makes the Orthodox bishops feel very open to dialogue.

 

[FrancisB]

Really? How so? And what about Pittsburgh?

Please, I highlight this not to be overtly argumentative, but the statement quoted above is largely inconsisent with the experience of Eastern Catholic Churches of the so-called “Slavic tradition”, especially here in the US, where we weren’t exactly welcomed with open arms when the immigrants first came over …

ByzCathCantor, the problem of the Americas is quite irregular in Orthodoxy, so I’m not sure how to respond to that. It just isn’t the same animal: most of the Orthodox bishops here are suffragans of archbishops to other sees, and so they are bishops in cities, but not necessarily of those cities. The Greek Archdiocese is America, and it overlaps with the ROCOR, OCA, and Antiochian diocese as well. In short, it’s a mess of a situation that the Orthodox haven’t sorted out amongst themselves. Fortunately, we Catholics resolved this issue early on, and the break between the American Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church in England was made early and relatively seamlessly.

Not being welcomed with open arms isn’t exactly what I was talking about, though. I never said that there weren’t tensions between the ROCOR/OCA group and the Eastern Catholics. My point was the fact that there isn’t an Orthodox Patriarch in Rome is that the Russians have been refusing. Lord knows, we kept Latin Patriarchs in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch for long enough (the offices were abolished during Vatican II). We still have an archbishop in Moscow and a patriarch in Jerusalem. This may seem like largely a symbolic gesture, but it’s no different than the diplomatic problems the US had/has with China because of the recognition of Taiwan, which claims to be the same legitimate government of the same country.

 

[Elijahmaria]

It depends. Many parishes allow it…as an economia. Some very traditional/conservative parishes and monasteries reserve the antidoran only for the Orthodox faithful who did not receive Holy Communion (and who have honored the same fasting preparation as those who received the Eucharist).

I attend a very loving Orthodox parish that has made me feel very much at home in many many ways, but it became very clear to me, once it was clear to them that I was not going to convert, that it was distressing to some when I took the antidoran. So I simply stopped doing so. I actually fast as though I were going to partake of communion and go to confession to a Catholic priest, as pray for a spiritual communion at the time of communion in the liturgy, but even with that I don’t think I would be welcome by some to take antidoran…besides it would be spiritually tacky to make an issue of it…

 

[jwinch2]

No, I think you misunderstand me; I didn’t say that the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches was the problem, nor the existence of Western Orthodox Churches. Both of these have as their origin an attempt at resolving the schism, which has not yet been fully realised. It is regrettable, but understandable.

I said the problem is the duplication of the hierarchy, which suggests an ecclesiology of two churches, rather than one church in trouble. The ancient tradition was that one city could only have one bishop. Although we have lost this, and in places there is overlapping Catholic hierarchs of different rites (again, acting as though the church is not one), the message that this sends to the Orthodox is quite clear: we may respect the validity of your priests and sacraments, but not the authority of your bishops. I don’t suspect that this makes the Orthodox bishops feel very open to dialogue.

I understood what you meant. I guess my response was not clear. With that in mind, I will attempt to state my comments more succinctly.

I do not believe that this is a only a function of the Latin Church. However, from your comments, it almost appears as if you do not believe that there the Orthodox Church has moved ecclesiastical structure into the west. However, there are multiple Orthodox Bishops claiming jurisdiction in what have traditionally been under the umbrella of the Latin Church.

I have no problem with what you are suggesting. In fact, I think it is very good. I fully agree that part of the process should be recognizing the territory of the other and believe that this would help in the process of restoring union. What does not seem to add up is the idea that the Catholic Church has moved their Bishops into Orthodox territory while the Orthodox Church has not done the opposite.

 

[Mickey]

I attend a very loving Orthodox parish that has made me feel very much at home in many many ways, but it became very clear to me, once it was clear to them that I was not going to convert, that it was distressing to some when I took the antidoran. So I simply stopped doing so. I actually fast as though I were going to partake of communion and go to confession to a Catholic priest, as pray for a spiritual communion at the time of communion in the liturgy, but even with that I don’t think I would be welcome by some to take antidoran…besides it would be spiritually tacky to make an issue of it…

Always a unique dilemma with your life.

I take it you find a way to ocassionally receive communion at an Eastern Catholic Church?

(You don’t have to answer if that is prying too much).