Do Orthodox want Communion with Rome?

[Cavaradossi]

In an earlier post, directly addressing the OP, I mentioned Orthodox not being in communion with other Orthodox. I also said that before Orthodoxy can speak with one voice about resuming communion with Rome, they had better resolve their own differences.

Many people think that Orthodoxy is one big happy family and that when “the Orthodox” say something about anything, it somehow represents a consensus of opinion, if not outright unanimity. This is clearly not the case, however.

Have a look here:*** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Churches***

By my count there are 23 Eastern Orthodox “churches” not in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy. Then there are 11 Oriental Orthodox churches, which, because they are Oriental Orthodox and not Eastern Orthodox, I might assume are also not in communion with the first 23 EO churches. And here in the U.S. there is the whole ridiculous, un-canonical issue of multiple “jurisdictions”. Oy Vey!

The Orthodox house is very much not in order. Is it any wonder (any disorder amongst Catholics notwithstanding) that it is so difficult for them to consider communion with Rome?

So, supposed theological, ecclesiological, philosophical, cultural, and practical differences between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church aside…It truly will take the intervention of the Holy Spirit AND willingness amongst the rank and file to put differences aside for us to achieve re-union this side of Eternity.

In Christ,
Jeff

Yes, and you have SSPX, the Union of Utrecht and all of the Protestants. What is your point? Do those breakaway movements prove that your house is in need of cleaning? And how can you claim to know anything about Orthodoxy when you cannot even tell the difference between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, who despite both using the word “Orthodox” in their names are two separate groups who have not been in true communion for 1500 years since the Council of Chalcedon. Perhaps you should start by learning something about Orthodoxy before telling the Orthodox what we should do.

 

[le_voyageur]

In an earlier post, directly addressing the OP, I mentioned Orthodox not being in communion with other Orthodox. I also said that before Orthodoxy can speak with one voice about resuming communion with Rome, they had better resolve their own differences.

Many people think that Orthodoxy is one big happy family and that when “the Orthodox” say something about anything, it somehow represents a consensus of opinion, if not outright unanimity. This is clearly not the case, however.

Have a look here:*** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Churches***

By my count there are 23 Eastern Orthodox “churches” not in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy. Then there are 11 Oriental Orthodox churches, which, because they are Oriental Orthodox and not Eastern Orthodox, I might assume are also not in communion with the first 23 EO churches. And here in the U.S. there is the whole ridiculous, un-canonical issue of multiple “jurisdictions”. Oy Vey!

The Orthodox house is very much not in order. Is it any wonder (any disorder amongst Catholics notwithstanding) that it is so difficult for them to consider communion with Rome?

So, supposed theological, ecclesiological, philosophical, cultural, and practical differences between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church aside…It truly will take the intervention of the Holy Spirit AND willingness amongst the rank and file to put differences aside for us to achieve re-union this side of Eternity.

In Christ,
Jeff

Hopefully, this will take place in our lifetime.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not see how you can perceive my statement to apply to your sources. I am certain your sources give reasons for their statements. The phrase only refers to those who come on here with these claims without themselves giving any reasons for them.

I’m sorry. I thought you were referencing me since you referenced what you had told me in a previous post, presumably about one of my arguments that you don’t like. Oh, and there’s also this:

But you’ve never given anything that actually explains these Orthodox positions that you have “presented.”

That makes me think that you are talking about me! But my point was not really about me personally, anyway, so much as when you rudely dismiss others as having no basis for what they think, you are also rudely dismissing the people from whom they learn, who are the sources of authority in their communion. And yes, I have supported my stances with links to things like the “Orthodox Unity” website (a collection of documents from inter-orthodox meetings, presented to counter your bizarre idea that the OO are somehow closer to the RC than to the EO) and the writings of HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern US Diocese (whose answers to various questions regarding the Coptic stance on this or that point of RC doctrine, available via the diocesan website, prove that the OO themselves do not agree with your contention that this or that official document from talks with Rome mean that the two communions believe essentially the same thing, or recognize the orthodoxy of the other). Again, it’s not as though any of this matters in the end, as you simply default to the Roman documents over and against what the OO themselves say about their talks with Rome and their own stances. It’s pointless.

Saying, “That Catholic teaching is a heresy” with no explanation is an empty slogan. Do your sources give explanations? I’m sure they do, so then present them here so we can discuss them. Otherwise, they are empty slogans - not with respect to your sources, but with respect to you simply stating it without any explanation or reasoning.

See above. If you could read a source without forcing it through your own paradigms, then perhaps we could discuss it. After all, that’s what you want me to do, right? To read an official Catholic document and take it as Rome’s position and not go back to an Orthodox source for their own interpretation of it, since it’s possible that this won’t match up with the reality of the teaching, right? And that’s what I do with RC sources, since I can search the Vatican website, too. But I can also find Orthodox answers and viewpoints. So if I present you with, say, an example of how the COC does not see the differences between it and the RC as being reconcilable, what will you say? I have more than enough prior experience with you in these situations to know that you will most likely have some sort of problem with how HG has presented the RC dogma, and will insist that this isn’t what the RC teaches. However I await a pleasant surprise from you, though not while holding my breath.

I don’t mind at all if they are not receptive. But if they come on here to a Catholic apologetics website making claims about the heterodoxy of Catholicism, then they’d better be willing and able to give the reasons.

I guess I just don’t see how they haven’t given reasons. I can see why you don’t like the way they’re presented (in that, yes, I have seen a lot of snarky “et tu, Benedictus?”-type comments) or their substance, but that’s different than saying that there are no reasons for them.

And if we Catholics respond to those claims, and those Orthodox reject the answers, they should be willing and able to give reasons why they think those Catholic answers are insufficient.

And if those reasons are insufficient for you, because they don’t match what you think makes a valid reason, then what? Because I can say that for me, as a not-even-Orthodox, my answer will be remarkably consistent and brief: “That’s not what the Orthodox teach.” Does that sound familiar to you?

If they are not willing or able to do that, why should we suffer their insults?

Right back atcha, buddy!

If they can give valid rejoinders, then they wouldn’t be insults, but would be legitimate POV’s. But there have been numerous occasions when that has not been the case.

The problem with this idea is that it is your notion of “validity” that carries the day, while it doesn’t seem like the Orthodox even have that same mindset. What’s “valid” is what’s Orthodox, and everything else…well…who really cares what it is, frankly. It’s unacceptable, and that’s that. You mightas well be asking Catholics to demonstrate that every one of their particular doctrines has the support of particular Greek or Syrian Fathers. No doubt you’d find a way to make it appear so, but the Orthodox would probably have trouble with the “validity” of your interpretations…

 

[Vico]

…And the idea that the EC’s were anything but a “rite” and not sui juris Churches was quite foreign to Rome before Vatican II. And this was also the result of Rome’s confusion noted above.

Alex

Sui iuris is an innovation of the CCEO (1990) and means means “own right”. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not absolutely autocephalous because the canon law, to which they are bound, is created by the Holy See (which allows for some law to be particular and territorial). They are relatively autonomous for the same reason.

Autocephalous: independent of external and especially patriarchal authority
Autonomous : having the right or power of self-government

 

[mardukm]

because the canon law, to which they are bound, is created by the Holy See

What do you mean by “created by the Holy See?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

This whole post proves my point. You are not willing to engage on particular issues and just want to spout off empty slogans. And all you can do to respond is cry “foul,” without actually engaging in any meaningful discussion. You give sporadic links, which only demonstrates your unwillingness to actually engage in particular issues. You yourself don’t give any reasons for your blind adherence to your sources other than “they said so.”

Why don’t you just admit that all you do most of the time is give empty slogans. When you actually want to engage in any meaningful discussion on particular issues, based on rational thought and not feelings, let me know. I will respond.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m sorry. I thought you were referencing me since you referenced what you had told me in a previous post, presumably about one of my arguments that you don’t like. Oh, and there’s also this:

That makes me think that you are talking about me! But my point was not really about me personally, anyway, so much as when you rudely dismiss others as having no basis for what they think, you are also rudely dismissing the people from whom they learn, who are the sources of authority in their communion. And yes, I have supported my stances with links to things like the “Orthodox Unity” website (a collection of documents from inter-orthodox meetings, presented to counter your bizarre idea that the OO are somehow closer to the RC than to the EO) and the writings of HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern US Diocese (whose answers to various questions regarding the Coptic stance on this or that point of RC doctrine, available via the diocesan website, prove that the OO themselves do not agree with your contention that this or that official document from talks with Rome mean that the two communions believe essentially the same thing, or recognize the orthodoxy of the other). Again, it’s not as though any of this matters in the end, as you simply default to the Roman documents over and against what the OO themselves say about their talks with Rome and their own stances. It’s pointless.

See above. If you could read a source without forcing it through your own paradigms, then perhaps we could discuss it. After all, that’s what you want me to do, right? To read an official Catholic document and take it as Rome’s position and not go back to an Orthodox source for their own interpretation of it, since it’s possible that this won’t match up with the reality of the teaching, right? And that’s what I do with RC sources, since I can search the Vatican website, too. But I can also find Orthodox answers and viewpoints. So if I present you with, say, an example of how the COC does not see the differences between it and the RC as being reconcilable, what will you say? I have more than enough prior experience with you in these situations to know that you will most likely have some sort of problem with how HG has presented the RC dogma, and will insist that this isn’t what the RC teaches. However I await a pleasant surprise from you, though not while holding my breath.

I guess I just don’t see how they haven’t given reasons. I can see why you don’t like the way they’re presented (in that, yes, I have seen a lot of snarky “et tu, Benedictus?”-type comments) or their substance, but that’s different than saying that there are no reasons for them.

And if those reasons are insufficient for you, because they don’t match what you think makes a valid reason, then what? Because I can say that for me, as a not-even-Orthodox, my answer will be remarkably consistent and brief: “That’s not what the Orthodox teach.” Does that sound familiar to you?

Right back atcha, buddy!

The problem with this idea is that it is your notion of “validity” that carries the day, while it doesn’t seem like the Orthodox even have that same mindset. What’s “valid” is what’s Orthodox, and everything else…well…who really cares what it is, frankly. It’s unacceptable, and that’s that. You mightas well be asking Catholics to demonstrate that every one of their particular doctrines has the support of particular Greek or Syrian Fathers. No doubt you’d find a way to make it appear so, but the Orthodox would probably have trouble with the “validity” of your interpretations…

 

[dzheremi]

I have a better idea…

 

[MrPip]

Yes, and you have SSPX, the Union of Utrecht and all of the Protestants. What is your point? Do those breakaway movements prove that your house is in need of cleaning? And how can you claim to know anything about Orthodoxy when you cannot even tell the difference between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, who despite both using the word “Orthodox” in their names are two separate groups who have not been in true communion for 1500 years since the Council of Chalcedon. Perhaps you should start by learning something about Orthodoxy before telling the Orthodox what we should do.

You say “you…”, assuming that I am RC and not Orthodox. You know what they say about “assuming”, don’t you…?

First of all, Protestantism isn’t part of this discussion, not having any kind of apostolic succession to claim at all.

Secondly, I haven’t discounted the problems within the Catholic Church. Read my post.

Thirdly, I do know a little bit about Orthodoxy. I’m no “expert”, of course, but I do know some. I was baptized and chrismated Byzantine Catholic, and “translated” to Orthodoxy via chrismation in the OCA about 8 years ago or so. So, yes, there’s certainly much I don’t know, but I’m not totally ignorant.

Fourthly, yes I do know some about the differences between EO and OO. And for you to discount them, and to discount the OO is a little disingenuous.

And lastly, I think my post speaks for itself. If you don’t understand the point I’m trying to make, I really can’t make it any clearer. Please accept my apology if it is so unclear that you don’t understand it.

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[milidrag]

…

Thirdly, I do know a little bit about Orthodoxy. I’m no “expert”, of course, but I do know some. I was baptized and chrismated Byzantine Catholic, and “translated” to Orthodoxy via chrismation in the OCA about 8 years ago or so. So, yes, there’s certainly much I don’t know, but I’m not totally ignorant.

Fourthly, yes I do know some about the differences between EO and OO. And for you to discount them, and to discount the OO is a little disingenuous.

…

Frankly, I would, too, assume that anyone grouping EO and OO together to point that ‘the Orthodox’ house isn’t in order is quite ignorant of Orthodoxy.

 

[MrPip]

Frankly, I would, too, assume that anyone grouping EO and OO together to point that ‘the Orthodox’ house isn’t in order is quite ignorant of Orthodoxy.

Perhaps one should inquire and/or explain before assuming. But…feel free to assume all you please. No skin off my old nose .

I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but I wonder if the Oriental Orthodox (or, to be more precise, the Non-Chalcedonian Christians) would feel slighted by not being considered Orthodox? That’s really a different discussion, though. I assume !

In any event, okay…take the OO out of the equation. There’s still plenty of dis-order in Eastern Orthodoxy to go around.

In Christ,
Jeff

b.t.w.–Happy Feast Day of the Holy Unmercenaries, Cosmas and Damian !!

 

[Cavaradossi]

You say “you…”, assuming that I am RC and not Orthodox. You know what they say about “assuming”, don’t you…?

First of all, Protestantism isn’t part of this discussion, not having any kind of apostolic succession to claim at all.

Secondly, I haven’t discounted the problems within the Catholic Church. Read my post.

Thirdly, I do know a little bit about Orthodoxy. I’m no “expert”, of course, but I do know some. I was baptized and chrismated Byzantine Catholic, and “translated” to Orthodoxy via chrismation in the OCA about 8 years ago or so. So, yes, there’s certainly much I don’t know, but I’m not totally ignorant.

Fourthly, yes I do know some about the differences between EO and OO. And for you to discount them, and to discount the OO is a little disingenuous.

And lastly, I think my post speaks for itself. If you don’t understand the point I’m trying to make, I really can’t make it any clearer. Please accept my apology if it is so unclear that you don’t understand it.

In Christ,
Jeff

Forgive me for being so presumptuous then. The moniker One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has become such a vague term now with so many groups laying claim to the title. I was getting into a rather heated debate elsewhere, so forgive my unnecessary snarkiness.

I would have to disagree on point 4, however. The OO have little to do with the dialogues for union between the EO and the RCC, and the EO have little to do with the dialogues for union between the OO and the RCC. Similarly, groups which have broken off from Eastern Orthodoxy like the Old Calendarists in Greece have as much to say about dialogue between the EO and the RCC as the SSPX does—which is not much.

 

[dzheremi]

I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but I wonder if the Oriental Orthodox (or, to be more precise, the Non-Chalcedonian Christians) would feel slighted by not being considered Orthodox? That’s really a different discussion, though. I assume !

Likewise, I hope that this isn’t too much of a diversion,I can semi-answer that (I’m not in communion with Alexandria yet, but God-willing will be sooner rather than later). This is a topic that comes up with some frequency in the Coptic circles that I am currently involved in. As with any other controversial matter, opinions range from the very “soft” (i.e., why don’t the EO consider us Orthodox? We consider THEM Orthodox, don’t we?) to the very “hard” (i.e., who cares what the Chalcedonians think? They’re all crypto-Nestorians, anyway). I can say with regard to people I am interacting with, most seem to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. They would like to be in union with the EO for the sake of having one united church presenting the Orthodox faith to the world, but not as subordinates or if they would have to deny their traditional Cyrilian Christology and distinctive practices that don’t fit in with the Byzantines. I don’t blame them at all, and this is probably closest to my own view (as EO/OO unity cannot really be in the model of the RC and EC, and there are precious few other examples of this kind of thing that might show us how it could play out “off-paper”). They don’t need anyone to tell them that they’re Orthodox (or not); they know they are, and are secure in their identities, since their own faith has withstood all that the Chalcedonians have withstood and more, often at the hands of fellow “Christians” who do not share the OO penchant for wider-than-expected variations in practice and expression within the shared Orthodox faith.

 

[MrPip]

Forgive me for being so presumptuous then. The moniker One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has become such a vague term now with so many groups laying claim to the title. I was getting into a rather heated debate elsewhere, so forgive my unnecessary snarkiness.

I would have to disagree on point 4, however. The OO have little to do with the dialogues for union between the EO and the RCC, and the EO have little to do with the dialogues for union between the OO and the RCC. Similarly, groups which have broken off from Eastern Orthodoxy like the Old Calendarists in Greece have as much to say about dialogue between the EO and the RCC as the SSPX does—which is not much.

Of course I forgive you. No harm, no foul, as “they” say. It really is so very easy to get presumptuous and snarky when you’re not face to face or voice to voice. Been guilty of it myself a time or two.

Like I said, though, you can take the OO out of the discussion if you like, but it doesn’t really change much.

Those groups which have “broken off” from EO frequently maintain that they are the true Orthodox Church and everyone else claiming that title is at best schismatic and at worst heretical. And even though those so-called “vagante” groups may have little to discuss with Rome or whomever, they illustrate the state of disorder that exists within Orthodoxy itself. What I tried to get across was that because there are “Orthodox” who are not even in communion with other “Orthodox” (and just who really is Orthodox, anyway?), it makes for even greater difficulty for “Orthodox” to discuss re-union with Rome. You know, kind of like, take the plank out of your own eye before discussing the splinter in mine. That’s all. And it is, by the way, just this old guy’s opinion–nobody’s doctrine, dogma or theologoumena .

I use the moniker above, by the way, because…well…the Church I belong to is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It exists in Moscow, Constantinople, a myriad of other places, and…the Vatican . But that’s a whole other discussion for a whole other thread . As you can guess, it’s not a very popular stance. Tends to rub some folks the wrong way. Oh well…

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[Cavaradossi]

Likewise, I hope that this isn’t too much of a diversion,I can semi-answer that (I’m not in communion with Alexandria yet, but God-willing will be sooner rather than later). This is a topic that comes up with some frequency in the Coptic circles that I am currently involved in. As with any other controversial matter, opinions range from the very “soft” (i.e., why don’t the EO consider us Orthodox? We consider THEM Orthodox, don’t we?) to the very “hard” (i.e., who cares what the Chalcedonians think? They’re all crypto-Nestorians, anyway). I can say with regard to people I am interacting with, most seem to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. They would like to be in union with the EO for the sake of having one united church presenting the Orthodox faith to the world, but not as subordinates or if they would have to deny their traditional Cyrilian Christology and distinctive practices that don’t fit in with the Byzantines. I don’t blame them at all, and this is probably closest to my own view (as EO/OO unity cannot really be in the model of the RC and EC, and there are precious few other examples of this kind of thing that might show us how it could play out “off-paper”). They don’t need anyone to tell them that they’re Orthodox (or not); they know they are, and are secure in their identities, since their own faith has withstood all that the Chalcedonians have withstood and more, often at the hands of fellow “Christians” who do not share the OO penchant for wider-than-expected variations in practice and expression within the shared Orthodox faith.

Likewise, on the EO side, opinions range from, “the OO are crypto-monophysites” to, “it’s just a linguistic issue; miaphysitism is consistent with Chalcedon if defined in the correct manner”. I think the true block for union between the EO and OO would be the status of the Council of Chalcedon and all of the subsequent councils. I think that the OO would be reluctant to accept Chalcedon, even though it’s been worked out in several dialogues that the Chalcedonian definition and Cyrilian Christology are not inconsistent if we can agree that the diophysite position does not detract from the oneness of the hypostasis of the Son and the miaphysite position does not detract from the fullness of Christ’s humanity and divinity. We do use the same adverbs to describe the union between Christ’s full humanity and full divinity (inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably) after all. There’s still much mistrust which must be set aside, but we seem to be on the right track with finding that our positions are not so different as we once believed.

Also, seeing how the Antiochians have changed (sometimes much to the chagrin of more conservative Churches) fasting practices and reestablished the western liturgy in Orthodoxy, I really should think that the OO keeping their ancient liturgy and practices shouldn’t be a problem (I say shouldn’t, but that doesn’t mean that everybody would I agree, I suppose). We do have to remember that at one point, the Byzantine Rite did coexist with the different (and yet still Orthodox) practices of the now OO.

 

[MrPip]

Likewise, on the EO side, opinions range from, “the OO are crypto-monophysites” to, “it’s just a linguistic issue; miaphysitism is consistent with Chalcedon if defined in the correct manner”. I think the true block for union between the EO and OO would be the status of the Council of Chalcedon and all of the subsequent councils. I think that the OO would be reluctant to accept Chalcedon, even though it’s been worked out in several dialogues that the Chalcedonian definition and Cyrilian Christology are not inconsistent if we can agree that the diophysite position does not detract from the oneness of the hypostasis of the Son and the miaphysite position does not detract from the fullness of Christ’s humanity and divinity. We do use the same adverbs to describe the union between Christ’s full humanity and full divinity (inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably) after all. There’s still much mistrust which must be set aside, but we seem to be on the right track with finding that our positions are not so different as we once believed.

Also, seeing how the Antiochians have changed (sometimes much to the chagrin of more conservative Churches) fasting practices and reestablished the western liturgy in Orthodoxy, I really should think that the OO keeping their ancient liturgy and practices shouldn’t be a problem (I say shouldn’t, but that doesn’t mean that everybody would I agree, I suppose). We do have to remember that at one point, the Byzantine Rite did coexist with the different (and yet still Orthodox) practices of the now OO.

Last I heard the fasting practices for the Antiochians (in the U.S., anyway) were the same as the other jurisdictions and haven’t changed. (Did I mention before that I attend, at least for now, an Antiochian parish, and have done so for the last 4+ years?)

Is there something “wrong” with the Western Rite liturgy? Just because it’s not the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, or St. James, etc., does that make it less “Orthodox”? Did you know that ROCOR also has a Western Rite Liturgy? You know, those “hard core” super-Orthodox Russians ?

But, methinks this thread’s been seriously derailed, and I apologize for my role in it .

Jeff

 

[milidrag]

…
b.t.w.–Happy Feast Day of the Holy Unmercenaries, Cosmas and Damian !!

Oh! You know what they say about “assuming”, don’t you…?

 

[MrPip]

Oh! You know what they say about “assuming”, don’t you…?

Edit: Okay…it may have just dawned on me (I can be a little slow at times )–are you referring to that fact that in Orthodoxy we have the “old” calendar and the “new” calendar? And that I might have “assumed” (oh noooo!), looking at my “new” calendar, that you or Cavaradossi were looking at the same “new” calendar when in fact you or he or both of you were looking at and going by the “old” calendar? Well, if so, you busted me. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Or have I just made another incorrect assumption? Shame on me! Please be so kind to enlighten me, okay? Thanks

Jeff

 

[milidrag]

Edit: Okay…Thanks

Jeff

You are welcome.

 

[MrPip]

You are welcome.

See, now? We “Orthodox” can’t even agree on a calendar, for pity’s sake!!! Sheeeeesh!

Reminds of of the old saying: Ask 2 Jews a question and you’ll get at least 3 different opinions.

 

[milidrag]

See, now? We “Orthodox” can’t even agree on a calendar, for pity’s sake!!! Sheeeeesh!

Reminds of of the old saying: Ask 2 Jews a question and you’ll get at least 3 different opinions.

I have completely different perception.