Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[CrucisLucia]

What is the Vatican’s opinion on the Eastern Orthodox Church in general? Does the Vatican consider the Eastern Orthodox as schismatics, or a church to be united with in the near future, or as what anything else?

 

[SyroMalankara]

True Churches, valid Eucharist and Sacraments. All that is lacking for unity, is unity.

The opinion is not the same uniformly reversed, however.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

If the EO’s wanted to unify, I’m sure concessions would be made and they could have their own rite. Probably keep their canon and liturgy.

I have heard the oath that a Catholic priest takes when converting to Orthodoxy, and the language they use is sort of ugly, denouncing all things Rome.

Don’t think they are interested in unification, but hope I’m wrong.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If the EO’s wanted to unify, I’m sure concessions would be made and they could have their own rite. Probably keep their canon and liturgy.

There is no difference in Rite between Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics.

I have heard the oath that a Catholic priest takes when converting to Orthodoxy, and the language they use is sort of ugly, denouncing all things Rome.

There is no “the oath”, it’s confession, a renunciation of errors according to the receiving Bishop and the Profession of the Creed.

 

[thephilosopher6]

What is the Vatican’s opinion on the Eastern Orthodox Church in general? Does the Vatican consider the Eastern Orthodox as schismatics, or a church to be united with in the near future, or as what anything else?

They’re simply in schism. They hold no heresy or false doctrine. They are apart of Christ Church.

 

[Dmitri77]

If the EO’s wanted to unify, I’m sure concessions would be made and they could have their own rite. Probably keep their canon and liturgy.

I have heard the oath that a Catholic priest takes when converting to Orthodoxy, and the language they use is sort of ugly, denouncing all things Rome.

Don’t think they are interested in unification, but hope I’m wrong.

We’re interested but realistic. Of all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church which ones would you be willing to renounce to make it happen? Papal Infallibility? Universal Jurisdiction? Remove and the Son from the Creed? Eliminating the unleavened wafers currently being used and replace them with leavened bread? Adding an explicit anaphora in the ordinary form of the mass? Confirmation of baptized babies immediately after Baptism? How many of these steps would you be willing to take?

 

[Dmitri77]

If the EO’s wanted to unify, I’m sure concessions would be made and they could have their own rite. Probably keep their canon and liturgy.

I have heard the oath that a Catholic priest takes when converting to Orthodoxy, and the language they use is sort of ugly, denouncing all things Rome.

Don’t think they are interested in unification, but hope I’m wrong.

Well there was lots of rough language used during the ecumenical councils. Lots of anathemas going everywhere. That’s just part and parcel of the polemical way these things were held in.

 

[Orthodolic]

The Catholics view us as a true Church, with apostolic succession, and valid sacraments. We Orthodox do not have a unified belief regarding Catholic sacraments, apostolic succession, etc. I used to believe that the schism was an internal schism and that the Catholics have grace filled sacraments. But, within the last few months, I’ve started to doubt the efficacy.

 

[twf]

We’re interested but realistic. Of all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church which ones would you be willing to renounce to make it happen? Papal Infallibility? Universal Jurisdiction? Remove and the Son from the Creed? Eliminating the unleavened wafers currently being used and replace them with leavened bread? Adding an explicit anaphora in the ordinary form of the mass? Confirmation of baptized babies immediately after Baptism? How many of these steps would you be willing to take?

The Latin Church used unleavened hosts before the Great Schism. It wasn’t an issue back then. Why would it be now?
Certainly we have taken many steps in the last several decades. The Second Vatican Council formally clarified that the Eastern Rites are fully equal to the Roman Rite in all ways. The Church changed its language in regards to the Eastern Orthodox from “schismatics” to “separated brethren”. Latin theology in the past century has definitely been far more influenced by the East than it had in previous centuries - the Catechism is proof of this with countless references to Eastern Fathers. Emphasizing confession as a remedial encounter with Christ the good Doctor comes to mind, as opposed to the more judicial / tribunal approach of previous eras. Vatican II also emphasized the authority of the college of bishops as a whole, balancing out the emphasis on papal authority of the previous Council; since the Council, the national conferences of bishops have been granted considerable autonomy and have begun to approach the national synods of old. Since the Council, a regular Synod of Bishops is now held in Rome. Pope Francis has spoken of the need of an even greater need for synodality, and specifically said we need to learn from the Orthodox in this regard.
Regarding the Creed, this has been debated to death on this board before, but there are many Orthodox thinkers who maintain that the clause is NOT heretical when properly understood. Pope St. John Paul emphasized that the monarchy of the Father cannot be denied by Catholics. The Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father but through the Son. Greek Catholics are NOT asked to recite the modified Latin creed…nor would we ask the Orthodox to do so.

 

[Abu]

The recognition of Christ’s very own, as such, is essential:
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18).

The problems arise from the break with Christ’s Chief Vicar so that the reality is that not only do the Orthodox have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches.

However, they have the genuine priesthood, and all the sacraments and thus are much closer to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church than Protestants who have rejected those realities from Christ.

 

[thephilosopher6]

The recognition of Christ’s very own, as such, is essential:
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18).

The problems arise from the break with Christ’s Chief Vicar so that the reality is that not only do the Orthodox have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches.

However, they have the genuine priesthood, and all the sacraments and thus are much closer to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church than Protestants who have rejected those realities from Christ.

Not all of them recognize Anglican orders. Some of them don’t even recognize Catholic orders.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Don’t really understand what the point is in attempting to reunify the two sides when there are some plainly irreconcilable differences.

Additionally, the Orthodox generally do not view Catholicism the same way Catholics view Orthodoxy. Most Catholics see Orthodox as merely a separated church, while many Orthodox consider the Catholic Church to be not only schismatic, but heretical, and would see no compromise possible to reunify the churches, and are therefore uninterested.

Instead of unity, there should be more focus on cooperation against the big crises facing Christianity. True unity won’t happen until Christ returns and settles the theology questions once and for all.

 

[Rohzek]

The Latin Church used unleavened hosts before the Great Schism. It wasn’t an issue back then. Why would it be now?
Certainly we have taken many steps in the last several decades. The Second Vatican Council formally clarified that the Eastern Rites are fully equal to the Roman Rite in all ways. The Church changed its language in regards to the Eastern Orthodox from “schismatics” to “separated brethren”. Latin theology in the past century has definitely been far more influenced by the East than it had in previous centuries - the Catechism is proof of this with countless references to Eastern Fathers. Emphasizing confession as a remedial encounter with Christ the good Doctor comes to mind, as opposed to the more judicial / tribunal approach of previous eras. Vatican II also emphasized the authority of the college of bishops as a whole, balancing out the emphasis on papal authority of the previous Council; since the Council, the national conferences of bishops have been granted considerable autonomy and have begun to approach the national synods of old. Since the Council, a regular Synod of Bishops is now held in Rome. Pope Francis has spoken of the need of an even greater need for synodality, and specifically said we need to learn from the Orthodox in this regard.
Regarding the Creed, this has been debated to death on this board before, but there are many Orthodox thinkers who maintain that the clause is NOT heretical when properly understood. Pope St. John Paul emphasized that the monarchy of the Father cannot be denied by Catholics. The Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father but through the Son. Greek Catholics are NOT asked to recite the modified Latin creed…nor would we ask the Orthodox to do so.

I think you’ve missed his point insofar that he is wondering how much Rome is willing to compromise with its own stuff. For example, will Rome change its liturgy and baptismal practices within its own Latin Church as long as Orthodox acquiesce on all doctrinal issues? There are many ways for unity ranging from total capitulation on the Catholic side to total capitulation on the Orthodox side.

Don’t really understand what the point is in attempting to reunify the two sides when there are some plainly irreconcilable differences.

Additionally, the Orthodox generally do not view Catholicism the same way Catholics view Orthodoxy. Most Catholics see Orthodox as merely a separated church, while many Orthodox consider the Catholic Church to be not only schismatic, but heretical, and would see no compromise possible to reunify the churches, and are therefore uninterested.

Instead of unity, there should be more focus on cooperation against the big crises facing Christianity. True unity won’t happen until Christ returns and settles the theology questions once and for all.

Pretty much my feelings exactly. I don’t think we will achieve unity before the second coming. I’m supportive of the ecumenical movement, but I really don’t see it reaching the ultimate goal.

 

[twf]

I think you’ve missed his point insofar that he is wondering how much Rome is willing to compromise with its own stuff. For example, will Rome change its liturgy and baptismal practices within its own Latin Church as long as Orthodox acquiesce on all doctrinal issues? There are many ways for unity ranging from total capitulation on the Catholic side to total capitulation on the Orthodox side.

Pretty much my feelings exactly. I don’t think we will achieve unity before the second coming. I’m supportive of the ecumenical movement, but I really don’t see it reaching the ultimate goal.

Yes, and I thought I addressed some of that. Since Vatican II, inspired explicitly by the East, Rome HAS developed her doctrines, liturgies and approaches in many regards. The modern Catechism is far more “Eastern” than catechisms that came before it. Collegiality and synodality have renewed vigour - the Pope as first within the college of bishops not apart from it. In regards to the epiclesis, this WAS added to the Novus Ordo (again inspired by the East). The Novus Ordo, properly celebrated as Vatican II intended (with chant, incense, reverence and awe) is far more East friendly than the Tridentine mass… The traditional Tridentine mass does NOT have an explicit epiclesis. The Novus Ordo restores this. It also called for a more dialogue approach (responses from the congregation) and the option to use the vernacular - again explicitly inspired by the East.

In regards to the timing and order of the sacraments - sure that could change. Here’s one Latin who says PLEASE God! Restore the ancient timing and order of the sacraments in the Latin Church .

Recent Popes have said that, in regards to the primacy, the East can’t be expect to accept more than what was lived in the first millennium.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Regarding the Creed, this has been debated to death on this board before, but there are many Orthodox thinkers who maintain that the clause is NOT heretical when properly understood. Pope St. John Paul emphasized that the monarchy of the Father cannot be denied by Catholics. The Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father but through the Son. Greek Catholics are NOT asked to recite the modified Latin creed…nor would we ask the Orthodox to do so.

I believe the Clause itself is not heretical if properly understood. However, it is impossible for it to be “properly understood” if one is bound, as all Catholics are, by the post-schism dogmatic declarations in the west which glossed on the Clause. Of particular concern are the proclamations of the Fourth Lateran Council, which state that the Spirit proceeds “equally” from the Father and the Son. As you have said, the Filioque issue has been debated extensively here, but in the 10 years or so I’ve been reading this board I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how “proceeds equally from the Father and the Son” can be reconciled with “through the Son” or with the Monarchy of the Father. I’m always ready to listen, though.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

In regards to the epiclesis, this WAS added to the Novus Ordo (again inspired by the East). The Novus Ordo, properly celebrated as Vatican II intended (with chant, incense, reverence and awe) is far more East friendly than the Tridentine mass… The traditional Tridentine mass does NOT have an explicit epiclesis. The Novus Ordo restores this. It also called for a more dialogue approach (responses from the congregation) and the option to use the vernacular - again explicitly inspired by the East.

Yes, I have always appreciated the restoration of the Epiclesis, and also of the vernacular. Another liturgical improvement, at least in theory, brought about by Vatican II was the provision for more frequent reception by the laity of the Chalice, although in practice it has not worked out that well since reception of the Chalice is still “optional” and at Mass many Catholics regularly pass it by, which in my view is worse than not offering it at all. But it was an attempt to move in the right direction.

More specifically, these laudable changes were the result of the “Ressourcement” movement and theologians, including the late great Yves Cardinal Congar. Ressourcement was a renewed appreciation of patristic theology, and therefore of the East. I wish it had had greater effect. My impression is that the abuses following VII scared the Catholic Magisterium into a retreat. Understandably, I guess.

Anyway, when I encounter Orthodox who talk as if the RC church has been in continuous decline since VII, I give them a good argument.

 

[twf]

I believe the Clause itself is not heretical if properly understood. However, it is impossible for it to be “properly understood” if one is bound, as all Catholics are, by the post-schism dogmatic declarations in the west which glossed on the Clause. Of particular concern are the proclamations of the Fourth Lateran Council, which state that the Spirit proceeds “equally” from the Father and the Son. As you have said, the Filioque issue has been debated extensively here, but in the 10 years or so I’ve been reading this board I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how “proceeds equally from the Father and the Son” can be reconciled with “through the Son” or with the Monarchy of the Father. I’m always ready to listen, though.

Alas, I cannot explain it myself. I have not made a personal study of the Lateran formula. Yet I know that there was no contradiction for Pope St John Paul II, so for me that’s enough. I hope someone else can come along and address it. I confess the monarchy of the Father as I know my Church does.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Alas, I cannot explain it myself. I have not made a personal study of the Lateran formula. Yet I know that there was no contradiction for Pope St John Paul II, so for me that’s enough. I hope someone else can come along and address it. I confess the monarchy of the Father as I know my Church does.

I greatly appreciate your honesty.

 

[twf]

Yes, I have always appreciated the restoration of the Epiclesis, and also of the vernacular. Another liturgical improvement, at least in theory, brought about by Vatican II was the provision for more frequent reception by the laity of the Chalice, although in practice it has not worked out that well since reception of the Chalice is still “optional” and at Mass many Catholics regularly pass it by, which in my view is worse than not offering it at all. But it was an attempt to move in the right direction.

More specifically, these laudable changes were the result of the “Ressourcement” movement and theologians, including the late great Yves Cardinal Congar. Ressourcement was a renewed appreciation of patristic theology, and therefore of the East. I wish it had had greater effect. My impression is that the abuses following VII scared the Catholic Magisterium into a retreat. Understandably, I guess.

Anyway, when I encounter Orthodox who talk as if the RC church has been in continuous decline since VII, I give them a good argument.

Yes. Thank you!
The Melkite Greek Catholics also played a big role at the Council, providing direct insights from their own Eastern praxis (which of course is essentially the Orthodox praxis). The reforms were definitely high jacked by liberals with an agenda, but in recent years, especially during Benedict XVI’s reign - though really it started with St John Paul II - we’ve started to see a lot of the damage of the 60s and 70s slowly undone in many places. I’ve participated in sung English masses that an open minded Orthodox Christian would be comfortable at.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Melkite Greek Catholics also played a big role at the Council, providing direct insights from their own Eastern praxis (which of course is essentially the Orthodox praxis).

If you have not read it, I think you would be edified by the late Archbishop Zoghby’s book, We Are All Schismatics.