Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[phil19034]

I listened to the Archbishop of Portland here on Catholic Answers Radio. He was talking about the OF vs the EF. He’s a huge supporter of the EF and can perform the EF mass.

He says that their differences are their beauty. There are great things in the OF which are not in the EF and vice versa.

I think it would great if people would simply attend both when possible.

Personally, I don’t get to attend an EF mass often, but will be attending one for All Saints Day.

God bless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not think that the two analogies work. I council couples considering marriage that marriage is a partnership between equals and that they must arrive at decisions together. I believe that a marriage dominated by either the husband or the wife is an unhealthy marriage. During the Orthodox marriage service the couple are crowned with the crown of martyrdom because each give of themselves for the other.

All true, Father, and well said. I agree with every word. However, when the husband and wife disagree, and a decision MUST be made, scripture (and wisdom) seem to suggest that the husband makes the final decision because “no decision” or “waiting” is not always an option, is it?

I am not going to rehash history, but although I consider the Patriarch of Constantinople the first among equals within my own Church, I certainly do not believe that the Patriarch of Antioch or the other autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy must be submissive to His All Holiness.

Of course not. None of these patriarch was established over the other by the Lord.

I do not mean to be insulting, but I honestly do not believe in the papacy as presently constituted. I do not believe that it is healthy or good to give one man as much power and authority as the Pope holds. I certainly do not believe that any human is infallible. I believe in the principle of conciliatory in Church administration and that no one in the Church should not be accountable to the higher authority of a council of his fellow Bishops and that of an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church.

Of course you don’t. That’s why you’re not Catholic. But then, you’re just acting on your own preferences and interpretations of scripture and history, correct?

As are we all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

People never quote the whole thing.

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. …] 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

While the wife must submit to her husband, the husband must love and treat his wife just like Christ does the Church.

Oh, please. I actually referenced TWO passages of scripture and three of the verses found therein intentionally.

Do you counsel couples who are preparing for marriage? If so, what do you say about the “wives submit to your husbands” issue? The husband and the wife are both equal, but scripture teaches that the husband is the head of the family who listens to his wife, loves her as his own body (Ephesians 5:22-28), and seeks to please her (1 Corinthians 7:33).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Roman Church isn’t demonstrating the kind of discipline you suggest within its own communion…I’m not exactly seeing any whips cracking with the SSPX after decades of disobedience & strife (and the anguish of thousands of souls who’ve been dragged into the dispute)? The Orthodox Synods are not afraid of bold action in our Churches - a cursory search will produce lots of examples to support this. This is why I suggest that Rome use the energy to deal with the issues within her own communion, rather than look for trouble elsewhere. I dunno, it’s a troubling issue.

My inclination would be to act as you suggest. That’s why I’m not a Bishop, I guess.

You and I see this as a weakness, but the Church has far more patience, mercy and maternal love than either of us realize.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I understand. However, how would you envision the relationship between the Pope and the Patriarchs if the Orthodox decided to “return”?

How would it be similar to or different from the relationships that the Pope has with the Bishops now?

Just asking.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand. However, how would you envision the relationship between the Pope and the Patriarchs if the Orthodox decided to “return”?

Orthodox convert to Catholicism all the time … and, likewise, Catholics convert to Orthodoxy all the time. We pretty much know how that goes, regardless of whether you call it “return”, “conversion” or whatever.

What would be different is if two groups would come together mutually (be it Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the ACoE, Catholicism and the PNCC, etc.).

 

[Nine_Two]

I understand. However, how would you envision the relationship between the Pope and the Patriarchs if the Orthodox decided to “return”?

How would it be similar to or different from the relationships that the Pope has with the Bishops now?

Just asking.

This is of course probably an issue that is just as pressing as the theological ones and the prerogatives of the Pope. In the years since I joined this forum I discovered that when Orthodox and Catholics speak of reunion they are speaking of two very different things.

When we speak of it we mean the Bishop of Rome would be added to the Dyptychs and intercommunion would resume. Catholics (lay Catholics specifically, I haven’t had opportunity to speak to Catholic clergy) generally see Orthodox bishops joining the Catholic Church as sui juris branches.

 

[dzheremi]

This is of course probably an issue that is just as pressing as the theological ones and the prerogatives of the Pope. In the years since I joined this forum I discovered that when Orthodox and Catholics speak of reunion they are speaking of two very different things.

When we speak of it we mean the Bishop of Rome would be added to the Dyptychs and intercommunion would resume. Catholics (lay Catholics specifically, I haven’t had opportunity to speak to Catholic clergy) generally see Orthodox bishops joining the Catholic Church as sui juris branches.

I agree with all of the above and just want to add that I once did ask my Father of Confession what he thought things would look like (since although he was a Dominican, he had a great love for Eastern and Oriental Christianity, particularly the Syriac tradition), and he actually said that he imagined the Orthodox Patriarchs of the various churches becoming the Patriarchs of the the “reunited” churches. So I suppose we would still essentially be treated as sui juris branches, but I was surprised anyway. He never did say what he thought would happen to Catholic patriarchs of the various Eastern churches (or what would happen in the cases of the Chaldeans, Syro-Malabars, or others who have no OO or EO equivalent patriarchs to look to), but I thought that as a man who knew his history this was hist way of acknowledging the historical fact that the preexisting Patriarchates of the various natural churches are the Orthodox, from which the various Eastern Catholics came. I doubt that can be taken as any kind of “official position” of the RC, but still…quite interesting anyway.

(Note: Not interesting enough for any of us to actually go for it, but y’know…at least someone’s out there thinking.)

 

[frjohnmorris]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
I understand. However, how would you envision the relationship between the Pope and the Patriarchs if the Orthodox decided to “return”?

The choice of the word “return” carries connotations that are best avoided because it is prejudicial and stands in the way of mutual reconciliation.
I would expect reunion to be based on the way that things were before Cardinal Humbert’s ill fated mission to Constantinople. Each Patriarchate would be self-governing with the Pope of Rome occupying a position as senior Bishop of the Church in honor, but without authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, just as the other Patriarchs would have no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarch of the West. All Patriarchs, including the Patriarch of the West would yield to the superior authority of an Ecumenical Council representing the entire Church. I would think in places like the United States where we both have parishes, that we could operate the way that Rome does today with parishes of the different Rites under the authority of their mother Church. Latin Rite Churches would be under the local Latin Rite Bishop and Byzantine and other Rite parishes would be under their own Patriarchates.

Archbishop John W. Morris

 

[phil19034]

I understand. However, how would you envision the relationship between the Pope and the Patriarchs if the Orthodox decided to “return”?

How would it be similar to or different from the relationships that the Pope has with the Bishops now?

Just asking.

The Patriarchs would run their own churches and be selected by their own Bishops.

The Chair of Peter would simply be the 1st amoung equals, having final word on Heresy or disagreements.

However, if all the Orthodox can into communion with Rome, the I think it would technically be possible to have a Pope who was not Roman Rite. Reason I say this, Pope Benedict renounced the title of Patriarch of the West (Patriarch of the Roman Rite). So the Pope is no longer technically the Patriarch of the West or Latin Church. Benedict did this to emphasis that the Chair of Peter is the head of the entire Catholic Church, not just the Latin Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Patriarchs would run their own churches and be selected by their own Bishops.

The Chair of Peter would simply be the 1st amoung equals, having final word on Heresy or disagreements.

However, if all the Orthodox can into communion with Rome, the I think it would technically be possible to have a Pope who was not Roman Rite. Reason I say this, Pope Benedict renounced the title of Patriarch of the West (Patriarch of the Roman Rite). So the Pope is no longer technically the Patriarch of the West or Latin Church. Benedict did this to emphasis that the Chair of Peter is the head of the entire Catholic Church, not just the Latin Church.

I personally wish that Pope Benedict had not renounced the title Patriarch of the West. I may be wrong, but I think that reunion would be easier had the Bishop of Rome kept that title. I cannot see Orthodox recognizing the Pope as “having final word on Heresy or disagreements.” Instead an Ecumenical Council or some sort of Council of the Patriarchs should have the final word. That is too much power to give to one man.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[bilop]

I personally wish that Pope Benedict had not renounced the title Patriarch of the West. I may be wrong, but I think that reunion would be easier had the Bishop of Rome kept that title. I cannot see Orthodox recognizing the Pope as “having final word on Heresy or disagreements.” Instead an Ecumenical Council or some sort of Council of the Patriarchs should have the final word. That is too much power to give to one man.

Archpriest John W. Morris

How about if there was a “council” of he 5 original patriarchs where the Bishop of Rome had the equivalent of 4 votes. So, he could not impose any change alone, but could veto any change alone.

God Bless

 

[dzheremi]

Why should the Pope of Rome get any more of a say than anyone else? That’s not acceptable. First among equals is not about power; in a practical/managerial sense it’s about seniority and recognized leadership roles (ex. the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church is recognized by all in the Church as their senior bishop, but he doesn’t get four votes to any other member of the synod’s one, even as he chairs it as part of his unique responsibilities as Pope).

Until we have a common understanding of what these concepts do and do not mean, any talk of “reunion” is absolutely useless.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with all of the above and just want to add that I once did ask my Father of Confession what he thought things would look like (since although he was a Dominican, he had a great love for Eastern and Oriental Christianity, particularly the Syriac tradition), and he actually said that he imagined the Orthodox Patriarchs of the various churches becoming the Patriarchs of the the “reunited” churches. So I suppose we would still essentially be treated as sui juris branches, but I was surprised anyway. He never did say what he thought would happen to Catholic patriarchs of the various Eastern churches (or what would happen in the cases of the Chaldeans, Syro-Malabars, or others who have no OO or EO equivalent patriarchs to look to), but I thought that as a man who knew his history this was hist way of acknowledging the historical fact that the preexisting Patriarchates of the various natural churches are the Orthodox, from which the various Eastern Catholics came. **I doubt that can be taken as any kind of “official position” of the RC, but still…quite interesting anyway.
**
(Note: Not interesting enough for any of us to actually go for it, but y’know…at least someone’s out there thinking.)

Not “official” but perhaps “standard”, or “quasi-standard”.

 

[Peter_J]

However, if all the Orthodox can into communion with Rome, the I think it would technically be possible to have a Pope who was not Roman Rite.

That’s already possible. (Not that we should have another discussion about it – we’ve already had a good number of threads devoted to the possibility. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823234 )

 

[Aramis]

Is it disrespectful for us to teach in accordance with the Holy Fathers that there is no salvific efficacy of sacraments performed outside of the Church, or for us to say that we believe our Church for certain reasons and then to enumerate those reasons? That, to me, seems to be the extent of what the Orthodox posters here have been doing. But then there have also been some posters who have resorted to finding ways to attack the faith of the other, and it was this attitude which was originally the target of the rebukes of certain rather eminent and respectable posters here (like RyanBlack). I frankly do not think that alleged incivility elsewhere should serve as an excuse for similar incivility here.

Note, friend, that the official teaching of Rome is that the EO and OO communions are still within the scope of the Church — sufficiently so that the sacraments are still valid and licit, and thus not covered by extra eclesiam nulla sanctus.

Many Catholics don’t understand that that isn’t a two way view.

Many Catholics don’t even have the EO and OO on their personal awareness at all - they know nothing at all, or have major misunderstandings by having their only sources be the portrayals on TV, such as the “Latvian Orthodox” story-arc on Seinfeld. (as bad as it was, it’s actually a pretty funny stuff, and it’s clear that the writers were at least passingly familiar with Orthodoxy.)

Heck, a lot of American Catholics, when you say “Orthodox” will think of Hasidim… not Orthodox Christianity.

And, to be painfully blunt: the only thing preventing the Orthodox from a 1st millenium level of union is their lack of the acknowledgement of church-ness of Rome, and the tons of polemic grounded in the errors of people like St. Photius.

 

[frjohnmorris]

How about if there was a “council” of he 5 original patriarchs where the Bishop of Rome had the equivalent of 4 votes. So, he could not impose any change alone, but could veto any change alone.

God Bless

I think that higher authorities than anyone involved in this informal discussion will have to make those decisions. To speculate is on what form reunion will take if we reach doctrinal agreement is completely premature and beyond the authority of anyone here. Remember even if everyone involved in this discussion reaches complete agreement, this is only an informal discussion and the actual decisions concerning reunion and how it will be done will not be made by anyone here. We can and should discuss issues, but we must be aware that there is an official international Orthodox Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue that is working to reunite our Churches. Let us continue to discuss issues as a kind of informal grass roots ecumenism, but we must recognize that the decisions will be made far above our level.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

People never quote the whole thing.

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. …] 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

While the wife must submit to her husband, the husband must love and treat his wife just like Christ does the Church.

Because there are at several such passages, and they don’t all say the same…

Colossians 3:18-25
The Christian Family.
18 * Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.o
19 Husbands, love your wives, and avoid any bitterness toward them.
20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord.p
21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they may not become discouraged.q
Slaves and Masters.
22 Slaves,* obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.r
23 Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others,
24 knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance; be slaves of the Lord Christ.
25 For the wrongdoer will receive recompense for the wrong he committed, and there is no partiality.

 

[Starrsmother]

Ever since reading chero’s post, I’ve been wondering if an Orthodox poster would respond with something like that (or “Hopefully one day our Catholic brothers and sisters can slowly come home. It would be beautiful.”)

I smiled when I read these posts–we all remain so very human, don’t we? Even as we hope for unity, we pray for God to make it happen–but to do it our way as we are ultimately correct! LOL! I know almost nothing about these schisms except what I’ve been privileged to learn by reading these posts. So, as a simple, Catholic lay woman I think I’ll just pray that God will find a way to point the leaders of the orthodox and western churches in the same direction at the same time in a spirit of finding what is in common and good with each other not what is different and bad. It may be far too simple an approach, but I used to use it when my sons were young and would get to fighting. I’d remind them that they were first of all brothers–then make them stand and look at each other until they could find something they liked about each other! Would such an approach work with grown men? I don’t know…

 

[Peter_J]

And, to be painfully blunt: the only thing preventing the Orthodox from a 1st millenium level of union is their lack of the acknowledgement of church-ness of Rome, and the tons of polemic grounded in the errors of people like St. Photius.

I don’t agree, but I honestly appreciate the bluntness … in my experience, many of our fellow Catholics really say the same thing but make it very hard to figure out that that’s what they’re saying.