Do Orthodox want Communion with Rome?

[Rawb]

What about Traditional Catholicism? Meaning the Extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy?

Do you mean do we find the same problems with it as we do the Novus Ordo?

Not quite. In fact, one of our Western Rite uses something very similar to the TLM but in English and with a few minor Orthodox variations (dropping the Filioque for example). Of course, the Western Rite uses our same fasting schedule and such too.

 

[Rawb]

Its funny but we have the name Catholic not you!!

On this forum, where the Orthodox are forbidden form using the name, perhaps.

We recite the original creed, stating “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” and I can assure you we do not speak of yours when we say it.

But if you enjoy the fact that you get to use the title on this forum, more power to you.

 

[Rawb]

If there was no Orthodoux church where would you go???

I would stay at home, and pray other prayers myself.

 

[dzheremi]

Speaking for myself, Rawb, I don’t so much see it as a matter of the Orthodox churches receiving anything from union with Rome (Orthodoxy being whole and complete in and of itself without relation to any other church, as I’m sure you know). Rather, to have the largest apostolic See return to its historic Orthodoxy would be a great benefit and testimony to Christianity itself, within the model of unity as it was in the early church. To live the reality of the Pauline Epistle, in which it is written:

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

This is true unity. How could it not be a good thing to live out this unity with Rome, as with Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.?

 

[Rawb]

Speaking for myself, Rawb, I don’t so much see it as a matter of the Orthodox churches receiving anything from union with Rome (Orthodoxy being whole and complete in and of itself without relation to any other church, as I’m sure you know). Rather, to have the largest apostolic See return to its historic Orthodoxy would be a great benefit and testimony to Christianity itself, within the model of unity as it was in the early church.

This is true. This is the one honest good that would come of union, and it’s what I meant when I said:

We would LOVE for Rome to come back to Orthodoxy, but that’s what we want - Rome to come back to Orthodoxy, not a compromise of the faith.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rawb,

In fact, one of our Western Rite uses something very similar to the TLM but in English and with a few minor Orthodox variations (dropping the Filioque for example). Of course, the Western Rite uses our same fasting schedule and such too.

Your description of Western Orthodoxy sounds like Eastern Orthodox uniatism.

Why should Latin Catholics want to be in union with that kind of Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Montalo]

Speaking for myself, Rawb, I don’t so much see it as a matter of the Orthodox churches receiving anything from union with Rome (Orthodoxy being whole and complete in and of itself without relation to any other church, as I’m sure you know). Rather, to have the largest apostolic See return to its historic Orthodoxy would be a great benefit and testimony to Christianity itself, within the model of unity as it was in the early church. To live the reality of the Pauline Epistle, in which it is written:

This is true unity. How could it not be a good thing to live out this unity with Rome, as with Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.?

i think that if Rome returned to Orthodoxy, then that would bring a decent amount of protestants along with it, for they would accept the One True Church, because of it.

Though, i think that the first unification that should be done is with the breakoffs of Orthodoxy, for example the Greek Old Calanderists and Russian Old Believers and the other non canonical churches

 

[etcumspiritutuo]

If I may offer a prayer from the Latin Rite Church; of course rooted in Christ, and if memory serves was on the lips of his Holiness John XXIII as he entered eternal life, and was reiterated by his Holiness John Paul II:

“Ut unum Sint”

The matter is not simply “Orthodox wanting union with Rome”. The matter goes both ways. The Church has 2 lungs. One is Rome, the other is Orthodox (pardon the simplification). It will take an act of the Holy Spirit to reconcile both, but in faith we know that all things are possible for God. The question is, how many will pray fervently “ut unum sint”

The schism is a horrible wound in the body of Christ. Yet as that wound exists, his precious blood will mend the body, and indeed in time, all will be one in Him. That being said, however, how horrible the wound; and how great the need for humility and faith… and trust in God.

Peace be with your spirit

 

[Rawb]

Dear Rawb,

Your description of Western Orthodoxy sounds like Eastern Orthodox uniatism.

Why should Latin Catholics want to be in union with that kind of Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

Ask them

 

[Rawb]

The Church has 2 lungs. One is Rome, the other is Orthodox

You should understand this is a Roman Catholic idea. Orthodoxy do not believe this.

The schism is a horrible wound in the body of Christ.

Again, this is Roman Catholic type thinking. In Orthodoxy Christ’s body is full and complete. Others have left that body, but that does not damage the body it damages those who have separated themselves from The Body.

 

[mardukm]

Ask them

The Latin Catholics, or the Western Orthodox?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

The Latin Catholics, or the Western Orthodox?

Blessings,
Marduk

You asked:

Why should Latin Catholics want to be in union with that kind of Church?

I think the best answer to your question would probably come from those Latin Catholics who became Western Orthodox. Obviously they were Latin Catholics who wanted to be in union with that kind of Church, because they are now. I was Latin Catholic, but I don’t attend a WR Parish.

 

[mardukm]

I think the best answer to your question would probably come from those Latin Catholics who became Western Orthodox. Obviously they were Latin Catholics who wanted to be in union with that kind of Church, because they are now. I was Latin Catholic, but I don’t attend a WR Parish.

Oh, OK.

My concern is that from your description there is really nothing “Western” about “Western Orthodoxy” - it’s really just Eastern Orthodoxy with some Western blandishments.

So former Latins who become “Western Orthodox” are not really Latin in theology or spirituality. They have really become Eastern Orthodox in everything except title. So they can’t really answer my question.

I’m not asking why someone wants to become Eastern Orthodox. I’m asking why a Latin who believes his/her spirituality and theology is fully orthodox would want to be in communion with a Church which forces them to give up their own fully orthodox spirituality and theology.

Are there Christians in Eastern Orthodoxy that have a genuine Latin theology and spirituality? If not, then is it not the case that the Eastern Orthodox model of unity is really nothing more than uniatism?

This is, btw, why I cannot in good conscience call the Eastern Orthodox Church “Catholic.” Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent the whole, but only – well, EASTERN Orthodoxy. However, as I’ve stated several times in the past, I have no problem referring to individual Eastern Orthodox Christians as Catholics when I discern that they have a truly Catholic outlook.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

My concern is that from your description there is really nothing “Western” about “Western Orthodoxy” - it’s really just Eastern Orthodoxy with some Western blandishments.

I’ll point out that I’ve heard the same about Eastern Catholicism being Roman Catholicism with the Divine Liturgy. We can both make accusations all we want.

We don’t view our theology as “Eastern” but as “Orthodox”. We do not accept those post schism innovations or terminology as orthodox, so of course we do not accept their use in our Church.

So former Latins who become “Western Orthodox” are not really Latin in theology or spirituality. They have really become Eastern Orthodox in everything except title. So they can’t really answer my question.

No, they’re perfectly Latin. They’re just pre-schism Latin.

I’m not asking why someone wants to become Eastern Orthodox. I’m asking why a Latin who believes his/her spirituality and theology is fully orthodox would want to be in communion with a Church which forces them to give up their own fully orthodox spirituality and theology.

If a Latin believes their spirituality and theology is perfectly orthodox why are they looking to leave their church? Your proposal is similar to a Southern Baptist who decides they want to become Catholic without giving up any of their spirituality, theology, or beliefs. Obviously you would not feel that would work. We feel the same way.

Are there Christians in Eastern Orthodoxy that have a genuine Latin theology and spirituality? If not, then is it not the case that the Eastern Orthodox model of unity is really nothing more than uniatism?

Orthodoxy has never claimed that it would accept Catholicism as it is or without drastic changes. Rome would have to become Orthodox. If that’s uniatism we’ve never claimed anything else.

 

[tlimon]

@Rawb

These threads often descend into hopelessness. From your perspective then, there is no hope for reconciliation between the Rome and Orthodoxy bar a complete acquiescence to every point of differentiation between Rome and Orthodox commonunion on every issue you mentioned. I have to believe there is greater hope than that. I pray that one day we will be united whether, at this time, you want it or not. I pray that the RCC is wise enough to walk along side our eastern brothers/sisters as far as we can in order to make unity a reality. Take care and God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rawb,

I’ll point out that I’ve heard the same about Eastern Catholicism being Roman Catholicism with the Divine Liturgy. We can both make accusations all we want.

Well, yes. The Catholic Church admits that uniatism existed, recognized the problem, and has worked to dispel ourselves of it. But is Eastern Orthodoxy willing to recognize the same danger in its own approach to unity (or at least the approach of many)?

We don’t view our theology as “Eastern” but as “Orthodox”. We do not accept those post schism innovations or terminology as orthodox, so of course we do not accept their use in our Church.

Your Church has also had post-schism developments and innovations. How do you judge what is “orthodox?” According to your Eastern standards, right? Why else would you not use stations of the cross, which are wholly orthodox. You can claim your theology is “not Eastern but Orthodox,” but the reality is that you judge orthodoxy by what is peculiarly Eastern.

No, they’re perfectly Latin. They’re just pre-schism Latin.

Do Western Orthodox churches have a celibate priesthood? Do they use filioque in the Creed? Do they use unleavened bread for communion? These were realities in the pre-schism Latin Church when the Church was still united. If they DON’T have them, then Western Orthodox Christians are not pre-schism Latins. Do Western Orthodox churches enjoin hesychasm? Do they use the language and theology of Essence/Energy? Do they hold a so-called “Cyprianic” view of baptisms outside the Church? These were NOT realities in the pre-schism Latin Church when the Church was still united. If they DO have them, then Western Orthodox Christians are not pre-schism Latins. There are other points that would demonstrate that Western Orthodox are not pre-Schism Latins, but the most obvious one would be whether or not they are united to the See of Rome. If they are not (obviously ) then they are NOT by any stretch of the imagination pre-Schism Latins.

If a Latin believes their spirituality and theology is perfectly orthodox why are they looking to leave their church? Your proposal is similar to a Southern Baptist who decides they want to become Catholic without giving up any of their spirituality, theology, or beliefs. Obviously you would not feel that would work. We feel the same way.

As I said, I’m not asking about conversion. I’m asking about conditions for reunion.

Orthodoxy has never claimed that it would accept Catholicism as it is or without drastic changes. Rome would have to become Orthodox. If that’s uniatism we’ve never claimed anything else.

The desire to have others come over to orthodoxy is not uniatism. Uniatism is the attempt to unite by means of uniformity in theology, spirituality, and praxis because of a lack of respect for other theologies, spiritualities and practices that are equally orthodox.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[milidrag]

I’ve Just curious; do any of the Orthodox actually want communion with Rome? I know some individuals might; but what about Patriarchs and Bishops?

As long as Rome is heterodox -** No**. (Read: Filioque first, a bunch of other stuff later)

Orthodox want and have communion with Orthodox. If Rome were Orthodox, there would be communion.

 

[mardukm]

As long as Rome is heterodox -** No**. (Read: Filioque first, a bunch of other stuff later)

Orthodox want and have communion with Orthodox. If Rome were Orthodox, there would be communion.

That’s a good presentation of the Orthodox position.

Now, all you have to do is demonstrate we are not Orthodox , preferably by addressing Catholic doctrine as the Catholic Church teaches it, not according to what non-Catholics THINK the Catholic Church is teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

The topic of the thread is not “Entertain Mardukm in his never-ending quest to prove that all disagreements with Rome are the result of non-Roman misunderstandings of what Rome is really saying”. It is “Do the Orthodox want communion with Rome”.

In another thread it is was basically acknowledged (here) that Rome’s doctrinal claims and its supposed orthodoxy are essentially independent in your mind for purposes of argument, so why is it now necessary to prove Rome’s unorthodoxy with reference to those same claims? If Rome’s positions can be understood, but the supposed orthodoxy of those claims rejected, then why do you keep up this charade?

To recap: Union with Rome is not a goal in and of itself such that it is desired in the absence of a shared faith that would sustain that union. So long as the Orthodox remain unconvinced of Rome’s supposed orthodoxy, it is just not happening. Not coincidentally, that period of time is exactly as long as Rome insists upon the acceptability and necessity of the particular doctrines that separate it from Orthodoxy.

 

[lax16]

The orthopraxis of Catholicism, from bishop to laity, leaves much to be desired

Rawb - Please elaborate on this comment.