We don’t speak of Orthodox Christians “converting” to Catholicism so much as entering into “full communion” or “translating”. It is also offensive from an Eastern Christian perspective to speak of the Orthodox “returning” to Rome, as they were never part of Rome / the Latin Church, but rather “in communion with Rome”. That being said, as a Catholic, I obviously agree that the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Churches is defective in that communion with the successor of St. Peter in Rome is intrinsic to Christian unity.
Antiochian Orthodox Christians are still, then, free to receive communion or any of the other sacraments in parishes of the Jerusalem Patriarchate? If so, this is not truly “breaking communion”, is it?
This does not affect the laity at all, affecting only the concelebration of clergy and what names are read in the diptychs at the Patriarchate in Damascus.
You would do well to read up on past conflicts within the Catholic Church before claiming the high ground.
Well, there are serious differences theologically between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. I would be careful to say, as many Catholics do, that “we’re just basically the same, they just don’t have the Pope”, because the Papacy is so fundamental (from our perspective) to both the Church and the Faith (not that I think you’re saying that, I just know many Catholics seem to think that nothing of importance separate us from the Greek-Orthodox churches, much to the contempt of many in the Orthodox churches!). Perhaps, though, I should have used a better word (one that didn’t come off so harshly). Da venia
.When I said “return to Rome”, I just meant to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, not become Latin Catholics. Again, my bad on the word choice :banghead:.
The bolded was pretty much my point.
:sad_yes:
Well, I think it’s just that the Patriarch of Jerusalem, or someone of similar high rank, would not be received to communion in an Antiochian parish. We receive Greek-Orthodox and other seperated Eastern Churches to communion (provided, of course, that it’s on their own initiative and that they be in the state of grace), but that does not mean that the Catholic Church is in communion with the Greek-Orthodox.
I thought an Orthodox was permitted to receive communion in the Catholic Church only in cases of emergency like a person dying wishing to receive communion, or a lack of Orthodox churches in the area. I didn’t think the Catholic Church simply allowed any Orthodox in a state of grace to receive it.
If on the part of the Christian in question, an absolute refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff, but yet still presents himself for communion, then he is a schismatic and cannot commune. However, as this is not the case with many in the various Eastern churches, and since by taking communion in the Catholic Church, they acknowledge the legitimacy of, i.e., the Filioque, then they can do so.
It is a breaking of communion in the sense that the Antiochian Patriarchate is now refusing to commemorate His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III in its diptychs (and likely refusing to concelebrate any liturgies with clergy who are within the Jerusalem Patriarchate). It is not, to my knowledge, a breaking of communion in the sense of a full blown schism where the Antiochians would claim that Patriarch Theophilos III and all the clergy under him have through schimatic acts left the Church and hence begin receiving the laymen within the Jerusalem Patriarchate as schismatics who are in need of the mystery of repentance (or according to the older custom, chrismation).
That is different though, because Orthodox Christians who knowingly commune in non-Orthodox Churches are considered to have committed a schismatic act and are therefore in need of the mystery of repentance to be received back into the Church. I highly doubt that the Antiochians on the other hand would treat communing with the Jerusalem Patriarchate as a schismatic act, as if they did, they would have to declare all clergy who remain in communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate to be schismatics (i.e., every other autocephalous church).
Forgive me Latinitas, but unless I’m misunderstanding you, there is a contradiction here. If an Orthodox did recognize the authority of the Pope and accepted the Filioque, then he or she would not be an Orthodox, at least in mentality, and that person should join one of the many Eastern rite churches in communion with Rome.
Does this have to do with Pope Francis’ upcoming
It is over a dispute in Qatar. The Antiochian Patriarchate claims that it historically has had jurisdiction over Qatar, and that the Jerusalem Patriarchate has violated this historical arrangement by opening a parish in Qatar. The Jerusalem Patriarchate claims to the contrary that Qatar is included in its jurisdiction by virtue of its title.