Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not baiting…this is a serious question posed by someone who has absolutely no contact with anyone who is Orthodox…me.

Assuming (and that’s a big deal, I know) that all doctrinal and liturgical issues are worked out, do the Orthodox even want to be re-united with Rome?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

 

[Erethorn]

Depends on what you mean by Orthodox. You have to remember that there are a number of Orthodox Churches and that they are self governing.

I can only speak about what I can experience - and that is the opinion of members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, expressed on internet forums. Based on that, I would say the answer is a definite NO, unfortunately.

The feeling I get when visiting Romanian Orthodox forums is that the Catholic Church is hated above all else. No, I’m not kidding. Above Muslims, Jehova’s Witnesses or Pentecostals, above atheists.

I’m not saying that this is necessarily the official position of the Romanian Orthodox Church, or of Eastern Orthodoxy in general. But this is what transpires from the forums I visit.

 

[Erethorn]

Sorry, wrong post, I was trying to edit my previous one.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Many Orthodox would like to see reconciliation and restoration of Communion.

But many Roman Catholics, as seen in the TCF, only think in terms of “submission.”

Nothing will get very far that way.

 

[Silyosha]

Many Orthodox would like to see reconciliation and restoration of Communion.

But many Roman Catholics, as seen in the TCF, only think in terms of “submission.”

Nothing will get very far that way.

This seems sadly true. But there is always a way.
Everyone, pray daily for the reconciliation.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

But many Roman Catholics, as seen in the TCF, only think in terms of “submission.”

Nothing will get very far that way.

I agree. Submission is not the answer and so many Latin Catholics do not understand this… I hope and pray daily for unity.

 

[5Loaves]

I agree. Submission is not the answer and so many Latin Catholics do not understand this… I hope and pray daily for unity.

Fortunately His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, is not among the Latin Catholics with that notion (submission) of what reunion would look like.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think most Orthodox would love to see reunion, we’re just cynical that it will happen any time soon.
Also keep in mind that because the Orthodox have a view that all bishops are equal, it doesn’t matter what the Pope says if ten other bishops are saying we have to submit in our minds, even if the Catholic possition is that those ten bishops don’t matter.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Fortunately His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, is not among the Latin Catholics with that notion (submission) of what reunion would look like.

yes, I’m liking that very much

 

[Ignatios]

If the RCC is willing to come back to the prior schism and claim her most honorable seat amongst her equals and brethren, we as Orthodox lift our hands and hearts to GOD and thank Him for bringing our most beloved brothers and sisters back to their own home amongst us, as for us Orthodox there is nothing that we can do to move towards where Rome is today NOT EVEN AN INCH, other than keep lifting up the prayers and invocation to GOD.
Tell me how could I go and receive communion from the RCC when they hold the Precious blood and give me only HIS Precious flesh, or how would go by accepting the Pope as the HEAD of the Church Dogmatically when it is clear from the Bible that the Head of the Church is JESUS CHRIST ALONE Dogmatically, No, GOD forbid that I would do such things.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[StevieD]

The Orthodox Churches have many disputes amongst themselves usually concerning what they describe as ‘jursidictions’ but which actually translates into territory, these arise because of the lack of any real central authority. The EO Churches are ethnic Churches and so difficulties arise when they operate outside their undisputed home territories and presumably why they failed to have a missionary presence in what we call the ‘third world’. There are also schisms within Eastern Orthodoxy regarding the calendar and the languages used in liturgy. The EO Churches would need to turn their own theoretical unity into actual unity before they could meaningfully discuss unity with another Church and they don’t seem to be trying to do so.
The distaste for Catholicism which is evident in much (most?) of the EO world would mean that any attempt at unity with the Catholic Church would anyway seriously break the unity within the EO and they know this and so need to avoid real movement in that direction.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not part of the EO Communion and appear to me to be a much more likely partner in the shorter term.

 

[malphono]

The Orthodox Churches have many disputes amongst themselves usually concerning what they describe as ‘jursidictions’ but which actually translates into territory, these arise because of the lack of any real central authority. The EO Churches are ethnic Churches and so difficulties arise when they operate outside their undisputed home territories and presumably why they failed to have a missionary presence in what we call the ‘third world’.

First off, while I’m not a Byzantine, I can say that they’re not exactly “ethnic Churches” but I suppose if one looks at those in Eastern Europe one could get that impression. The first autocephalous Church (recognized as such by the Council of Ephesus) was Cyprus, and it has never laid claim to the title “patriarchate” or anything else. Since Cyprus is Greek-speaking, one cannot say that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus is an “ethnic” one, else it would be absorbed by the Church of Greece. (Canonically, the Church of Greece is similar to Cyprus, although of much later date.) The Patriarchate was and remains Constantinople for both Cyprus and Greece. The Melkites (and Antiochian Orthodox) are similarly not “ethnic” as such, although they lay claim to the Patriarchate of Antioch. (The issue of that particular Byzantine Patriarchate has been dealt with in a variety of threads in this forum, and I am not about to get into it again now.)

As I see it, the proliferation of “national patriarchates” in Eastern Europe is the idea of autocephaly carried to extreme, following on the example of Moscow which declared itself a patriarchate. (I guess size does matter )

The distaste for Catholicism which is evident in much (most?) of the EO world would mean that any attempt at unity with the Catholic Church would anyway seriously break the unity within the EO and they know this and so need to avoid real movement in that direction.

I’m not sure how much of what appears to be “distaste” is real or merely an emulation of the “party line” of the MP.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not part of the EO Communion and appear to me to be a much more likely partner in the shorter term.

No question about that. And we can add the ACoE to that list.

 

[StevieD]

I’m not sure how much of what appears to be “distaste” is real or merely an emulation of the “party line” of the MP.

No question about that. And we can add the ACoE to that list.

Thank you, that is genuinely enlightening and interesting as I do not claim to be an expert in matters EO. However I believe that my comment about ‘ethnic churches’ is generally accurate in that it describes the situation of the vast majority of EOC believers. As a side point, I would point out that DNA studies (now some years old) prove that the ‘Greek Cypriots’ are not ethnically Greek at all and share their DNA with their Muslim neighbours. They are a separate race to the Greeks so they are ethnically distinct (so even their church is actually ethnically based).

The ‘party line’ of the Moscow Patriarchate appears to be actually ‘softer’ on Catholicism than the Greek OC since the former recognise Roman orders but the latter do not (an odd difference for those claiming to be of the same Church, especially when in the 19th century it was the other way around - which raises the thorny EO question of authority).

What is the AcoE?

Steve

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If the RCC is willing to come back to the prior schism and claim her most honorable seat amongst her equals and brethren, we as Orthodox lift our hands and hearts to GOD and thank Him for bringing our most beloved brothers and sisters back to their own home amongst us, as for us Orthodox there is nothing that we can do to move towards where Rome is today NOT EVEN AN INCH, other than keep lifting up the prayers and invocation to GOD.
Tell me how could I go and receive communion from the RCC when they hold the Precious blood and give me only HIS Precious flesh, or how would go by accepting the Pope as the HEAD of the Church Dogmatically when it is clear from the Bible that the Head of the Church is JESUS CHRIST ALONE Dogmatically, No, GOD forbid that I would do such things.

GOD bless you all †††

when they hold the Precious blood and give me only HIS Precious flesh.

. . .um, are you telling me that Jesus’s body and blood are now ‘separate’ parts? That the bread made flesh is ‘only’ flesh and the wine made blood is ‘only’ blood? That doesn’t sound right. Furthermore, quite a number of parishes, including mine, offer both Species.

As for the Pope being ‘head of the church’, he is the ‘vicar’, the prime-minister, heck even the ‘first among equals’ --your conception of Christ ‘alone’ sounds far more ‘protestant’ influenced than most of your fellow Orthodox, as well as the ‘clear from the Bible’ (I do not believe that the Orthodox lean to ‘Bible’ alone’. . .But of course, there are many different members of the Orthodox communion and we are always glad to learn what you’re thinking. . .

 

[Nine_Two]

The Orthodox Churches have many disputes amongst themselves usually concerning what they describe as ‘jursidictions’ but which actually translates into territory, these arise because of the lack of any real central authority. The EO Churches are ethnic Churches and so difficulties arise when they operate outside their undisputed home territories and presumably why they failed to have a missionary presence in what we call the ‘third world’. There are also schisms within Eastern Orthodoxy regarding the calendar and the languages used in liturgy. The EO Churches would need to turn their own theoretical unity into actual unity before they could meaningfully discuss unity with another Church and they don’t seem to be trying to do so.
The distaste for Catholicism which is evident in much (most?) of the EO world would mean that any attempt at unity with the Catholic Church would anyway seriously break the unity within the EO and they know this and so need to avoid real movement in that direction.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not part of the EO Communion and appear to me to be a much more likely partner in the shorter term.

You are partially correct, there is some disunity and conflict within the Orthodox, however for the most part it is superficial. The Old Calendarists are as much a part of the EO as the Lutherans are a part of the Catholic Church.
The juristictional issues, while very real, are at most of minimal annoyance to your average Orthodox Christian. It certainly does not stand in the way of missions, and I have to wonder where you got the idea that we have a failed missionary presence in the third world?
Even in territories where disputes between juristictions have become quite heated, like Estonia, the Church is growing by leaps and bounds.

By the way, I quite agree with you that we need to get our stuff together before we start seriously persuing unity with the Church of Rome, which is why you don’t see Orthodox constantly starting threads on how we’re all the same and should unite.

 

[Nine_Two]

. . .um, are you telling me that Jesus’s body and blood are now ‘separate’ parts? That the bread made flesh is ‘only’ flesh and the wine made blood is ‘only’ blood? That doesn’t sound right. Furthermore, quite a number of parishes, including mine, offer both Species.

As for the Pope being ‘head of the church’, he is the ‘vicar’, the prime-minister, heck even the ‘first among equals’ --your conception of Christ ‘alone’ sounds far more ‘protestant’ influenced than most of your fellow Orthodox, as well as the ‘clear from the Bible’ (I do not believe that the Orthodox lean to ‘Bible’ alone’. . .But of course, there are many different members of the Orthodox communion and we are always glad to learn what you’re thinking. . .

That is one distinction between Catholics and Orthodox. We do not believe that both the body and blood exist within both the wine and bread.

And the title “vicar” means one who acts in the place of, which is a title I personally won’t accept any patriarch using.

 

[spn82756]

I think that reunion would be the greatest thing that could occur in Christianity. I know there are difficulties…but for two Churches that are true Churches…nothing could make our Lord happier.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That is one distinction between Catholics and Orthodox. We do not believe that both the body and blood exist within both the wine and bread.

And the title “vicar” means one who acts in the place of, which is a title I personally won’t accept any patriarch using.

Once the Body and Blood have been co-mingled in the chalice, why make a distinction where none exists?

As to “vicar” - each and every Orthodox and Catholic bishop is a vicar of Christ, according to the teaching of it’s own churches.

 

[spn82756]

That is one distinction between Catholics and Orthodox. We do not believe that both the body and blood exist within both the wine and bread.

That is something I was not familiar with. I thought both Catholic and Orthodox believed that the Body and Blood were present totally in either.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\That is one distinction between Catholics and Orthodox. We do not believe that both the body and blood exist within both the wine and bread.\

**Nine_Two, I don’t know where you got this idea.

Orthodoxy has never denied the doctrine of concomitance (as you are doing here).

In fact, Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, teaches that the ENTIRE Christ is present in the smallest recognizable fragment of either species.

Otherwise, Orthodox priests would not give communion to infants in the Precious Blood alone, as I’ve seen done in all jurisdictions all my life.**