Can the Orhodox and Catholic Churches reunite?

[Hasire]

Ridgerunner:
Yes, as sad as it sounds it is pretty much correct.

 

[Mickey]

I agree with your statement. It is definitely not a matter of the smallish things people sometimes cite as differences. You were very mannerly and thoughtful in the way you presented an extremely difficult subject.

Not meaning to cause offense either, I feel compelled to risk it in order to say the following so Catholics do not get the wrong impression of the difficulty reunion presents.

Orthodoxy accepts the concept that there ought to be a Patriarch of Rome. But that’s about as far as it goes. Territoriality is central to Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox do not accept the right of Catholicism to be worldwide. Various Orthodox Patriarchs claim jurisdiction in all of Asia, the Americas and Europe outside the City of Rome and its immediately surrounding area.

This means Catholics in the Americas, for example, could not have Catholic priests or bishops. In short, to be considered members of the Church founded by Christ, they would have to become Orthodox.

Orthodoxy does not accept the validity of Catholic sacraments, though some accept Catholic baptism. Therefore, the Pope could not be the Patriarch of Rome unless he was ordained in the Orthodox Church then elected the Patriarch of Rome by Orthodox bishops. To Orthodoxy, our priests are not priests and we who consider ourselves married, really aren’t.

To Orthodoxy, Catholicism is as heretical as the Assemblies of God, and just as illigitimate. In fact, to Orthodoxy, the very term “Catholic” is not legitimately applied to Catholics because, to Orthodoxy, the only “Catholic” (universal) Church is Orthodoxy.

Yes, there are the Eastern Catholic Churches that have Byzantine traditions. But to Orthodoxy, they are at least as offensive as Roman Catholicism is, perhaps more so.

Catholics, I think, ought to think well of, even reverence, Orthodoxy because Catholicism does, indeed, recognize the legitimacy of Orthodox sacraments, and their priests and bishops as having Apostolic Succession. But we should not imagine that Orthodoxy thinks any better of Catholicism than Catholicism thinks of, say, Methodism. Perhaps less so.

I would add a cautionary note to this. Even discussing the causes of the schism and its persistence invites a firestorm that can readily cause ill will between Catholics and Orthodox in here or in any site in which both may be discussed. I have seen it happen before.

Best to leave it in God’s hands and in the hands of those churchmen of good will in both who communicate these matters among themselves. Men alone have failed to resolve it these thousand years past.

Good post.

It cannot be denied that much of what you say rings true. I have even heard the expression that Roman Catholic are “the first protestants.” However, there are certain jurisdictions (ie: Middle East) where Catholics/Orthodox and Coptic/Orthodox are very co-operative due to the oppresive situations in which they live. Also, it may not be outspoken or evident…but I often see a great deal of compassion between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox due to their common worship style and roots.

In the end, I agree with your conclusion. It should be left in God’s hands…and those whom He has chosen to be the successors of His apostles. I think that the Most Holy Mother of God will have a hand in the matter also.

 

[Nine_Two]

I agree with your statement. It is definitely not a matter of the smallish things people sometimes cite as differences. You were very mannerly and thoughtful in the way you presented an extremely difficult subject.

Not meaning to cause offense either, I feel compelled to risk it in order to say the following so Catholics do not get the wrong impression of the difficulty reunion presents.

Orthodoxy accepts the concept that there ought to be a Patriarch of Rome. But that’s about as far as it goes. Territoriality is central to Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox do not accept the right of Catholicism to be worldwide. Various Orthodox Patriarchs claim jurisdiction in all of Asia, the Americas and Europe outside the City of Rome and its immediately surrounding area.

This means Catholics in the Americas, for example, could not have Catholic priests or bishops. In short, to be considered members of the Church founded by Christ, they would have to become Orthodox.

Orthodoxy does not accept the validity of Catholic sacraments, though some accept Catholic baptism. Therefore, the Pope could not be the Patriarch of Rome unless he was ordained in the Orthodox Church then elected the Patriarch of Rome by Orthodox bishops. To Orthodoxy, our priests are not priests and we who consider ourselves married, really aren’t.

To Orthodoxy, Catholicism is as heretical as the Assemblies of God, and just as illigitimate. In fact, to Orthodoxy, the very term “Catholic” is not legitimately applied to Catholics because, to Orthodoxy, the only “Catholic” (universal) Church is Orthodoxy.

Yes, there are the Eastern Catholic Churches that have Byzantine traditions. But to Orthodoxy, they are at least as offensive as Roman Catholicism is, perhaps more so.

Catholics, I think, ought to think well of, even reverence, Orthodoxy because Catholicism does, indeed, recognize the legitimacy of Orthodox sacraments, and their priests and bishops as having Apostolic Succession. But we should not imagine that Orthodoxy thinks any better of Catholicism than Catholicism thinks of, say, Methodism. Perhaps less so.

I would add a cautionary note to this. Even discussing the causes of the schism and its persistence invites a firestorm that can readily cause ill will between Catholics and Orthodox in here or in any site in which both may be discussed. I have seen it happen before.

Best to leave it in God’s hands and in the hands of those churchmen of good will in both who communicate these matters among themselves. Men alone have failed to resolve it these thousand years past.

I don’t think the positions you mention are necessarily the dominant ones, but they are certainly fairly common, and as such are a consideration in discussion.

 

[fordhamstudent]

Ridegerunner, I bed to differ, Orthodox tend to see uniatism as almost an objective evil and a holdover from the days Catholic missionaries proselytized the Orthodox through what used to be termed the Greek Rite. I would say Orthodox have better relations with Latin Catholics than Eastern Catholics in spite of Eastern Catholics having almost total similarity in externals. My post deals with the real issues between the Churches and not a mere prayer request for unity–however noble that action is. Real theological and pastoral work is going to be necessary between not only the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but also all the Orthodox Jurisdictions and Orthodox Patriarchates on an individual basis–since as you know there is no equivalent to a Roman Pontiff in Orthodoxy who can make a canonical decision for the whole Church. The odds of unity are weak, but yes, prayers are needed and miracles do happen

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Not in our life time.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The only way at least the Churches under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople would unite with Rome would be through the aegis of an Ecumenical Council and only after a renunciation of Catholic doctrines and dogmas which impede union–which have been discussed earlier in this post. The other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, specifically that of the Moscow Patriarchate, would be very difficult if not impossible to convince to enter ecclesial communion with the Catholic Communion of Churches united to the Pope since the MP is very anti-unia of any kind.

The EP is anti-unia too. The Orthodox will not unite in that context. Of course, if you meant that Moscow is very anti-union (and anti-ecumenism), this would be a different matter. The Russian Orthodox Church is very large, and frankly, such a generalization that it is completely against ecumenical dialogue is unwarranted. There are Russian Orthodox bishops who approve of ecumenical dialogue, and who have a very warm attitude towards Roman Catholics (Metropolitan Hilarion comes to mind), and there are bishops who disapprove of ecumenical dialogue. The same is true of the Church of Greece. There are some Greek bishops, like Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, who are active in ecumenical dialogues, and yet the synod of the Greek Orthodox Church as a whole has officially expressed its disapproval of the results of certain dialogues (like the dialogues in Ravenna). The Georgians do not participate in any ecumenical dialogue at all, and the Southern Slavs have their own attitude, as do the Romanians. The situation is more complicated than this gross over-simplification I see often on the internet that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is falling head-over-heels for union, while the Russian Orthodox Church is staunchly anti-union and preventing the Ecumenical Patriarchate back from achieving union. It makes for a good story (everybody wants a protagonist and an antagonist, after all), but it’s far from accurate.

The issue of the convocation of the Holy and Great Council by the Ecumenical Patriarch is going to not be without great trouble. The MP and the EP have been at odds with each other over the power grab which is the Orthodox Church–since the MP sees itself as the New Rome and the Church of pre-eminence and the one with the majority of members–which is why the MP granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America without the consent of the heads of the Orthodox autocephalous Church specifically the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the EP to attempt to convoke an Ecumenical Council without the MP actually spearheading it is also an issue of which patriarchate is pre-eminent. The MP is growing in power and influence while the EP is a persecuted minority in Turkey–one can immediately see why the two patriarchates are at odds with each other on many counts.

I think you really don’t understand the situation. The primary cause of tension between the MP and the EP is over who has jurisdiction over new territories being evangelized. The EP claims that it has sole right to this jurisdiction based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which gives the Patriarch of Constantinople jurisdiction over the “barbarians.” The Russians, and several others, like the Antiochians disagree that this is the correct way of interpreting this canon. The issue with the OCA is a similar problem. There is no canonical procedure right now for establishing a new autocephalous church. The EP maintains that it alone possesses the sole right of granting autocephaly, while the Russian Orthodox Church maintains that it had the right to grant the OCA its autocephaly, because the OCA was once under its jurisdiction. The tension is more over interpreting the canons and jurisdiction, and less so over power.

The other problem with achieving Church unity through an Orthodox Ecumenical Council is which autocephalous Churches would even accept the decisions of the Council. Another issue is the Old Calendarists and Traditionalists in New Calendar Orthodox Churches–who definitively would never accept ecumenist and modernist decisions of such a Council. Most likely convoking an Orthodox Ecumenical Council would breed more schisms, especially among conservative and traditional Orthodox in those jurisdictions.

That is a rather nonsensical “problem.” Had the early Church taken such a pessimistic attitude, no councils would ever have been held, since Nicaea was not successful in preventing the Arians from going into schism, Ephesus the Nestorians, Chalcedon the non-Chalcedonians, etc. A greater problem is that according to the tradition, Ecumenical Councils only occur among bishops who are already in communion. The Orthodox cannot hold a council with the Roman Catholics until after communion is established, which would necessitate a capitulation of sorts from one side or the other.

 

[fordhamstudent]

First, my post does not address ecumenical dialogue, that is a separate issue from an Ecumenical Council and the issues involved in its convocation. Second, if you read between the lines of your post you will see this is about power–jurisdiction is about authority and power over subjects and third, citing early Councils fails to take into context the 21st century Orthodox sectarianism which even its own hierarchs admit makes Orthodoxy non-canonical in not only the US, but also in several other countries who have overlapping jurisdictions.

 

[Rdunbar123]

We have a Western Orthodox here now? Exciting! Catholic Answers is getting diverse. ROCOR or Antiochian?

And I agree with your comment.

Antiochian, diocese of the Midwest

 

[Cavaradossi]

First, my post does not address ecumenical dialogue, that is a separate issue from an Ecumenical Council and the issues involved in its convocation.

You made a broad generalization about the Russian Orthodox Church being “anti-unia,” to which I responded by pointing out that in the sense of “uniatism,” all of Orthodoxy is unanimously opposed, and if in the sense of union and ecumenical dialogue, that this sort of hasty generalization is unfounded.

Second, if you read between the lines of your post you will see this is about power–jurisdiction is about authority and power over subjects

Nonsense. The issue with jurisdiction is about maintaining proper order.

and third, citing early Councils fails to take into context the 21st century Orthodox sectarianism which even its own hierarchs admit makes Orthodoxy non-canonical in not only the US, but also in several other countries who have overlapping jurisdictions.

You keep using this term, “sectarianism.” Do the overlapping jurisdictions of Latin Catholic and Eastern Catholic bishops make your Church “sectarian?” At least Orthodoxy has a proper enough understanding of ecclesiology to regard overlapping jurisdictions as being a problem.

 

[R_C]

The only way at least the Churches under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople would unite with Rome would be through the aegis of an Ecumenical Council and only after a renunciation of Catholic doctrines and dogmas which impede union–which have been discussed earlier in this post.

That is impossible, because the Church cannot contradict itself. What has been taught as infallible cannot be renounced, and I am certain that our brethren understand this. And I consider that Ridgerunner’s post casts an interesting light on the discussion. This leads to sad arguments. The answer to the original question seems to be: yes, if it be God’s will.