Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[chimo]

In the event of the Orthodox coming back into communion, which patriarch would step down and which would be considered the true one?

Like in the case of the antiochans, who would be regarded as the legitimate one? The Melkite, Antiochan orthodox, maronite or Syrian Catholic one?

Or in the case of Jerusalem, the Catholic or Orthodox one?

Would a synod be held to determine this?

Any ideas?

The question would never be on the minds of the Orthodox to return back since they believe it is the other way around that the Catholic Church must return back to them. This tug of war really is going no where. The plans of a unified Church have all failed miserably because the Churches do not see each other as the Church. Rome sees herself as the Church. The East also likewise. The problem as I see it is their refusal to acknowledge they are both right. This refusal is what causing this disunity to continue. East and West need to recognize they both have authority within the Church. Authority in the past was poorly defined for real authority is actually how one serves the other. In practice it is more of a service but sometimes authority was abused in giving us a poor reflection of what it really is. Here I am not talking about your obedience to the Pope or to the Patriarch. I am referring more to a pastoral authority in serving others. This pastoral authority must be better defined so that both East and West will find it more acceptable. There will be no unity until this pastoral role of both Pope and Patriarch be more pronounced. If you will like to know of the answer to a unified Christendom between the East and West it must be a shared authority on the grounds that the East must have her voice alongside Rome. It will come this type of setup for it takes time before more Catholics can be more informed into the direction by which the Pope must take. It hasn’t come for the simple reason that the Catholic Church is not ready for it.

There is no reason for the Orthodox to return back since there was no relationship in the past that determine this to be true. There has to be another approach that would work for both sides. Since most of the Catholic world does not know the Orthodox and vice versa this delay in our eventual unity will last until both sides will come to know the other. This means more work for the Laity. The unity must coexist on the principal that both East and West must share this authority together. The problem with Antioch is not that difficult since all Bishops are true Bishops. If there are many other Sees in Antioch this shows us what happened in history when other factors had given this to the Church of Antioch. In honesty the rightful continuing Patriarch of Antioch is the Orthodox one. Circumstances from the past however created other Sees to be alongside it. However this may be the Patriarch of Antioch works very closely with these other Sees.

 

[cmodrmac]

Guys - wow

An issue with the Orthodox is that their Churches are highly ethnic , which is fine, but inevitably it drives off say a RC of Irish descent who would likely feel uncomfortable with a 95% Greek congregation

This is true in many of the Eastern catholic Churches such as the Maronites- how many Irish or Italian Americans attend Maronite Churches? -few I believe

I see little interest on the Orthodx side for reunion and really why should they? - I have no ax to grind in this debate and really see no reason at all for this too happen

I guess Divine intervention could occur -but has not happened in over a 1000 years

The RC Church should try to bring the PNCC back into communion -that would make sense

The remaining Episcopaleans are happy being members of the Episcopal Church and are a lost cause - you have a shot with the Anglican Church in North America

I wish the respect that the mainline Protestant denominations give to the RC Church would be reciprocated

 

[frjohnmorris]

Eastern Orthodox Catholic reunion is not that difficult if both sides would agree to go back to the way things were before 1054. There is a very active Orthodox Catholic dialogue that is working to resolve our differences, many of which are matters of emphasis rather than dogmatic. For example, we do not believe in purgatory, but we also believe in prayers for the departed and that our spiritual progress continues after death. We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, but we believe that Our Lady was sinless and that the Holy Spirit prepared her to become the Mother of God. We do disagree on papal authority, but would recognize the pope as senior Bishop of the church with a primacy of honor as first among equals but not jurisdiction. We also disagree on non-abortive methods of birth control. I honestly do not understand what difference there is between what Catholics call natural family planning and using a non abortive method of birth control… We obviously agree on abortion except that we would make an exception to save the life of the mother. On most other moral issues we agree completely with the Catholic position. We share the same early Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, we agree on more than we disagree. I do not see much difference between us on Sacramental theology, although our worship is much more traditional than modern American Roman Catholics.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

It would be in the Orthodox Churches best interest to reunite and become in full communion with Rome.They should use the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model and become one Church as our Lord desires.

Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Peter_J]

Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore. Thanks, but no thanks.

I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here.)

 

[Peter_J]

What the Catholic Church needs is a Pope Pius XIII, to restore our beloved church, and correct the many errors of the pastoral Vatican II council.

Sveti Ante.

So in the same sentence you speak of “the many errors of the pastoral Vatican II council” and “our beloved church” (emphasis added).

Does anyone see something wrong with this picture?

 

[frjohnmorris]

The idea expressed above that Orthodox are highly ethnic is an exaggeration. There are many converts within American Orthodoxy including the majority of the clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese. All but a few Antiochian and OCA parishes use exclusively English for their services. We have received whole parishes of converts not only from the Episcopal Church, but also Evangelical and Charismatic congregations.

When dealing with doctrine, it is important to try to understand if the differences are really doctrinal or are only a matter or emphasis or semantics. On some issues that seem to divide us we may be expressing the same basic concept, but using different language that make the difference appear to be greater than it actually is.

Of course the really big difference is the papacy. Orthodox can accept a primacy of honor like Rome held before the schism and like Constantinople holds in the Orthodox Church today, but cannot accept infallibility or the give up our belief that the every Bishop including the Bishop of Rome is subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
Union would be easily achieved if both sides agreed to go back to the beliefs and practices of the united Church before 1054.

Archpriest John W. Morris, PhD

 

[SyroMalankara]

The idea expressed above that Orthodox are highly ethnic is an exaggeration. There are many converts within American Orthodoxy including the majority of the clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese. All but a few Antiochian and OCA parishes use exclusively English for their services. We have received whole parishes of converts not only from the Episcopal Church, but also Evangelical and Charismatic congregations.

When dealing with doctrine, it is important to try to understand if the differences are really doctrinal or are only a matter or emphasis or semantics. On some issues that seem to divide us we may be expressing the same basic concept, but using different language that make the difference appear to be greater than it actually is.

Of course the really big difference is the papacy. Orthodox can accept a primacy of honor like Rome held before the schism and like Constantinople holds in the Orthodox Church today, but cannot accept infallibility or the give up our belief that the every Bishop including the Bishop of Rome is subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
Union would be easily achieved if both sides agreed to go back to the beliefs and practices of the united Church before 1054.

Archpriest John W. Morris, PhD

Archpriest Fr. John, why 1054 and not 451 or 431?

 

[frjohnmorris]

1054 is the date that the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics began.

451 is the Council of Chalcedon that condemned monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Armenian went into schism by rejecting the Council of Chalcedon. This was a small schism compared to the Great Schism between the much larger Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

431 it the date of the Council of Ephesus that Condemned Nestorianism. The Church of the East rejected Ephesus and went into schism. This also was a much smaller schism than the Great Schism of 1054

 

[frjohnmorris]

After further thought I would like to add a few points to my answer. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism share a common doctrine of Christ, Christology. Of all Christian teachings, Christology is the most important. By 1054 the united Church had expressed its proper Christological dogma. because by 1054 the 7 Ecumenical Council had met. Since we both accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils, we can come together on on the basis of the faith that we shared after the 7 Ecumenical Councils. After the II Council of Nicea in 787 neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy changed or modified its Christology.
We could not unite without Ephesus or Chalcedon because they both affirmed very important points of the Christological doctrine that we both share. We both reject Nestorianism,condemned by the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Ephesus in 431. We also both reject Monophysitism , condemned by the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, in 431. The 6th Council, II Constantinople in 553 clarified a few points of Chalcedon by reaffirming the condemnation of Nestorianism. The 6 Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 680 condemned the heresy of Monothelitism which taught that Christ had no human will. The last Council, Nicea II in 787, condemned iconoclasm the heresy that rejected the veneration of images. We both venerate images. Thus the 7 Ecumenical Councils expressed the Faith that Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism still share.
Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism were in Communion until 1054. That is why I believe that we can unite on the Faith that we shared before the formal break in Communion in 1054.

 

[Starrsmother]

In the event of the Orthodox coming back into communion, which patriarch would step down and which would be considered the true one?

Like in the case of the antiochans, who would be regarded as the legitimate one? The Melkite, Antiochan orthodox, maronite or Syrian Catholic one?

Or in the case of Jerusalem, the Catholic or Orthodox one?

Would a synod be held to determine this?

Boy! This is a good question! We always pray for the reunification of the East and West churches—but I guess I never really considered exactly what that would entail. Would an Eastern patriarch ever submit to a Western Pope? And conversely, would Pope Francis, for instance, step down in place of an eastern patriarch? And when you work your way down to the laity, I wonder how the average eastern Catholic would feel about accepting Western ritual–and if they would have to and vise versa with the Western laity? Good questions all. I wonder exactly what would have to happen for reunification to occur?
Any ideas?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Restoration of Communion would not require common doctrine but not unification of administrations. The most important thing is sharing a common doctrine. We can work out administrative details later. For example today in the United States most Catholic Bishops are Latin Rite. However, frequently there are parishes under an Eastern Catholic Bishop in the same city as Latin Rite parishes under the local Latin Rite Bishop. For example, if the Eastern Orthodox in the US were in Communion with Rome, we could keep our own Bishops and our own administration. If you put a Byzantine Rite parish under a Latin Rite Bishop he would have to learn the Byzantine Rite. If you put a Latin Rite parish under a Byzantine Rite Bishop, he would have to learn the Latin Rite. If we concelebrate, we would use the Rite used by the parish were the concelebration takes place with the presiding priest telling everyone what to do.

 

[Starrsmother]

I wasn’t trying to say the Orthodox are obviously wrong in that post, but I’ll say it in this one: in doctrines where the Orthodox disagree with the Catholic Church, they are obviously wrong. Not because the Bible and Tradition and reason always make that obvious and clear for us, but because by disagreeing with the Church, it automatically follows that they are in disagreement with those things, and that can be proved.

What do the east and west churches disagree on-- other than the papacy being the sovereign head of the Catholic church on earth? Just curious and never knew for sure if there are other issue and if so what? I realize that many of the eastern priests are married–but even that wouldn’t necessarily be a stumbling block to them being accepted as RC priests–it would effect future priests of course—

 

[dzheremi]

Restoration of Communion would not require common doctrine but not unification of administrations.

Um, Father…I hope there’s a typo in the first clause above.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here.)

Where do you get the idea that it would not be in the Orthodox/Catholic Churche’s best interest to reunite and become in full communion with each other? I missed that encyclical and homily by the Pope, I also am not aware of any from the East?

Could you post them for me, I would be interested in reading them.

Thanks.

 

[Peter_J]

Where do you get the idea that it would not be in the Orthodox/Catholic Churche’s best interest to reunite and become in full communion with each other?

I could ask you, Where do you get the idea that you should put words in my mouth?

 

[Peter_J]

1054 is the date that the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics began.

I strongly disagree. 1054 does hold some significance, as the date that Cardinal Humbert [tried to?] excommunicate Patriarch Cerularius, and Patriarch Cerularius excommunicated Cardinal Humbert, thus furthering the breakdown of relations/communication between the two sides. However, there was not a full-fledged schism between Catholics and Orthodox until the Council of Florence in the 15th century.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I could ask you, Where do you get the idea that you should put words in my mouth?

Post #64 and #65 which are comnents to…

Originally Posted by Sveti Ante…

“It would be in the Orthodox Churches best interest to reunite and become in full communion with Rome. They should use the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model and become one Church as our Lord desires.”

NIne stated…

“Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore. Thanks, but no thanks”.

You stated…

“I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

I’m asking where this thinking comes from. I don’t recollect reading this anywhere? So no I didn’t put words in your mouth. I commented on the ones which came out of it.

 

[malphono]

I strongly disagree. 1054 does hold some significance, as the date that Cardinal Humbert [tried to?] excommunicate Patriarch Cerularius, and Patriarch Cerularius excommunicated Cardinal Humbert, thus furthering the breakdown of relations/communication between the two sides. However, there was not a full-fledged schism between Catholics and Orthodox until the Council of Florence in the 15th century.

Yes but Peter, isn’t that sort of a “tomato-tomahto” thing? Florence wouldn’t have happened at all if the mutual excommunications hadn’t been imposed in the first place. And IIRC, neither side formally lifted the excommunication, so it would seem to me that either incident could be considered correct.

And for Orientals, the “Robber Council” of Chalcedon is perhaps of more importance. You know, considering Imperial insistence on misinterpreting Cyril’s Christology and all.

 

[Starrsmother]

I understand, and I also know many Catholics are stubborn, as well. Note: I should have put “can be” instead of “are” for both. I think until the Church elders from both sides, or both the Orthodox and Catholic say and/or do something about it, we will be forever split in two. I don’t know how many out there dislike the Orthodox, or vise versa, and I also don’t know how many would like both to unite into one again.

I’d very much like the east and west churches to re-unite. From what I’ve read on the subject—and understand that I have had very little experience with the eastern churches–the original split was over a question of wording in a document proclaimed by the Pope at the time. It was pretty much over semantics–both were saying about the same thing but in different ways and the split was the result. If so, all the more reason to work for re-unification. There may be more to it than that by now after all the time that has passed, and re-unification now may be way more difficult today-- I don’t know. Let me share a little true story with you though:

The other day, a friend I game with on FB online and I were talking. She is the widow of a protestant minister and she knows that I’m Catholic. Somehow the concept of our religious differences came up and she remarked to me that she was saved by faith in Jesus alone–a common enough protestant belief. I reminded her that as a Catholic, I believe we are saved by faith AND good works. She told me that I was wrong–that this isn’t what it says in the bible. I asked her if she believed that her faith in Jesus made her act differently–in her own opinion–than if she didn’t believe. She answered me: “Of course.” So I asked her, just hypothetically, if a man were baptized, accepted God as his “personal savior” publically and then spent every weekend prowling for prostitutes, raped them, tortured them, killed them, cut up their bodies and dumped them on the side of the road, but then showed up at church on Sunday to again proclaim his faith in Jesus–if she felt that the man’s faith alone would save him from hell if he were somehow caught, sentenced to death and landed in Huntsville, Texas where the death unit is?

My friend works as a parole officer in Amarillo, Texas–which is why I made such a grisly, black and white comparison.

Anyway, she replied readily “Of course not! I think he’d go to hell!”

So I asked her, “Then you believe that a person can have faith in God, be baptized, accept Jesus as his personal savior and still go to hell, right? Why do you believe that?”

I know she somehow thought she had me on that one–as she knows Catholics don’t believe in the death penalty just for a start. She replied: “Because he went out and committed rape and murder of course–the guy is a serial killer!”

“So,” I wrote her back"Then you are saying that you believe that a man can believe in Jesus, be baptized, accept Jesus as his savior and still do something that is a great enough sin that he’d go to hell anyway, right" She agreed that this was what she believed. So I simply asked her “Then I assume that at least one reason you aren’t a serial killer is because you believe it’s a bad enough sin it would merit hell. If that is true, then your belief in Jesus tells you that if you can go to hell by acting evil, conversely you must also believe that by believing in Jesus you must choose not to act in evil ways in order not to go to hell, right?”

She agreed. “Well then,” I remarked, “You actually DO believe that faith alone is not enough to get you to heaven–that good works must happen too as a result of your believing in Jesus and not wanting to land in hell and that bad works must be avoided–and because you love Jesus and want to go to heaven you ACT in a way to get you there and avoid other acts that will cause you to go to hell, right?.” When she agreed with me I simply responded “Well then, I hate to break the news to you, but you’re on your way to being a Catholic–you just don’t know it yet!”

We laughed and she agreed–sort of–but my point is that I think many of the “break-aways” from Catholicism began as semantic arguments. Our consciences tell us all much the same thing, and If we could all set down and talk–there just might be hope for all Christians to re-unify–and the eastern churches just might be a good starting point!