Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[sidbrown]

Do the Orthodox even want reunification? It depends on whose terms this reunification is supposed to take place. If it is to take place on the terms demanded by the Roman Catholic Church, then I would say no.
However, there are terms on which my guess would be that the Orthodox would accept reunification. The Catholic Church says it wants reunification, but as far as I can see it is unwilling to accept the terms acceptable to the Orthodox Church.
I think that reunification with the Orthodox would proceed rather quickly if the Catholic Church would agree to modify (in a way pleasing to the Orthodox) the following teachings:

1. papal infallibility.
2. universal papal jurisdiction.
3. the Immaculate Conception
4. Purgatory and indulgences
5. Baptism by sprinkling and not triple immersion
6. profane music and clapping at Mass
7. filioque
8. original sin
   Further if the Catholic Church would accept:
9. icons and not statues
10. the Orthodox date of Easter
11. leavened bread
12. fasting from midnight for Holy Communion
13. strict Lenten fast
    then the reunification would go a lot faster.

 

[marlo]

Yep. you are in heresy alright, as long as you believe that a complete communion is with Bread and Wine only, then yes, its heresy,

i have asked this before but none was able to answer, if you go strictly on the scriptures, it goes by the words, drink this cup, in which the Eastern Orthodox never drink from the cup anyway, they use spoon, "drink from the spoon?,, now who is violating tradition now.

hhhmmm… interesting my Bible says this:
1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:27&version=KJV
It would be interesting to find out what the Greek actually say?

NOT at all, he was “serving” CHRIST after he was “COMMANDED”

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Aramis]

And bringing up Old Calendarist Catholics is not a cogent comparison, because there is no schism within the Catholic Church between the those who use the Julian Calendar and those who use the Gregorian. Nobody is claiming that the rest of the Catholic Church has committed apostasy by letting the Pope correct a calendar originally devised by pagan priests using insufficient data. There are two calendars that are in use, and we accept each other’s practices. Same with the Russian Catholics who follow the Old Believers’ rites and those who follow the Orthodox ones -

Sorry, but not all old-believers are in communion with Moscow. In fact, most are not. I’ve heard Old Believers state categorically that the Muscovite and the OCA churches are schismatic and heretical… as well as all the other Nikonian churches, and the Greeks, and the Catholics. Not all, mind you… but the Old Believers are not a single body, but several different communions, including some without Holy Orders!

The Old Believers I’ve talked with are adamant that salvation only exists within their particular version of “Old Believer,” and maybe, just maybe, in certain groups of other old believers.

Likewise, canonical Orthodoxy isn’t without its issues; the MP and EP have had much sniping back and forth, threats of anathema over ecumenism… And Mt. Athos having had several monasteries refuse to commemorate the EP for some time…

 

[Ilyusha]

Ilyusha, how is a celibate priesthood “heretical”? You also have celibate priests - hieromonks and bishops - and the Armenians have celibate vardapets. We also have married priests - usually former Protestant ministers or Eastern Catholic priests. There is nothing heretical about requiring a priest to devote himself entirely to the sacrificial ministry. Celibacy is a beautiful vocation, and as Orthodox you ought to know that, given the centrality your church places on monasticism.

I do lament Communion in the hand, however - but it does not make someone heretical; it was never an issue for the Orthodox before 1054, even though it was practice in the Latin Church from the very beginning until that date. (If not, please correct me - I would love for that to be wrong. It would help incredibly in the debate with liberal Catholics.)

Likewise, I don’t think that you can accurately say that Orthodoxy rejects the Immaculate Conception. It was a Greek tradition - taught by St. Gregory Palamas and St. Peter Mohila, and a number of standard manuals of dogmatic theology used by Orthodox seminaries - and, in fact, it was because it was viewed as simply a Greek rather than a universal tradition that it took so long to be defined by the Catholic Church.

Having an identity of “non-Catholic” seems to me very unhealthy - schism is an ecclesiastical sin, and the desire to perpetuate the state is a personal sin, whether for a Catholic or for Orthodox. Christ prayed that we may all be one. It would be much healthier to glorify in the actual characteristics of Orthodoxy, since Orthodoxy (unlike Protestantism) actually has a positive character other than a simple rejection of Catholicism.

I’m sorry, you misunderstood me. My post was poorly worded and unclear. I don’t consider those things heretical, but many Orthodox do, and as such do not want to enter into ecumentical communion with those they regard as heretics.

That said, I don’t think that men who have to deal with pastoral care should be celibate. Priests have to deal with families and the family issues of their parish, and they have to guide their congregations in their lives. How can a man do this if he has never experienced real life himself? Orthodox priests are family men. They have experience in loving relationships and raising children. They are more suited to pastoral care than Catholic priests who are often virgins who wouldn’t have the first clue about relationships or parenting. Furthermore, celibacy is not natural, and it requires great ascetic discipline to properly maintain it. This is best suited to monastery life, rather than parish life where the priest is constantly tempted. We’re all familiar with the scandals.

 

[1holycatholic]

St Basil the Great concerning the canons.

IV: In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, “he whom thou now hast is not your husband.” He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.

Here is a link.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

The letter is a list of grievous sins and their appropriate ecclesial penalties.

Why would he specify the lengths of excommunications for people attempting second or third marriages? Why would they have to repent and show proof of it before they are restored to communion?

Can you provide something that doesn’t contradict the point you’re attempting to make?

 

[Ghosty]

And lets not forget that some Catholics, such as the Melkites, believe that every council after the Seventh Ecumenical Council was only a local council for the Latin Church and not ecumenical. Some Latin Catholics also reject the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.

The Catholic Church is not a homogeneous as some might think.

Yours in Christ
Joe

The Melkite Church doesn’t call them Ecumenical, but doesn’t reject their teachings, either. I’ve spoken personally to our Eparch on this matter; we are not to reject the teachings of the other Councils as erroneous, regardless of their designation.

There was one Melkite Bishop who thought otherwise, but I’ve seen no evidence of other Melkite Bishops joining him.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do the Orthodox even want reunification? It depends on whose terms this reunification is supposed to take place. If it is to take place on the terms demanded by the Roman Catholic Church, then I would say no.
However, there are terms on which my guess would be that the Orthodox would accept reunification. The Catholic Church says it wants reunification, but as far as I can see it is unwilling to accept the terms acceptable to the Orthodox Church.
I think that reunification with the Orthodox would proceed rather quickly if the Catholic Church would agree to modify (in a way pleasing to the Orthodox) the following teachings:

1. papal infallibility.
2. universal papal jurisdiction.
3. the Immaculate Conception
4. Purgatory and indulgences
5. Baptism by sprinkling and not triple immersion
6. profane music and clapping at Mass
7. filioque
8. original sin
   Further if the Catholic Church would accept:
9. icons and not statues
10. the Orthodox date of Easter
11. leavened bread
12. fasting from midnight for Holy Communion
13. strict Lenten fast
    then the reunification would go a lot faster.

In other words, convert to Orthodoxy. Right?

 

[Ridgerunner]

OOO I can give much more than that antipathy, how about a geneocide against the Orthodox Serbs in Croatia have you ever heard of it the croatians claimed that they killed 1 million Orthodox Serbs, but the Germans said that this is not true they only killed 700000 soul, how about the last war in croatia did you read about it, I will not get into the involvement of the Vatican and the money that they still hold that it it is belong to the Serbians… that was just one, if you need to knwo more let me know

I, for one, have been made aware by Orthodox posters on CAF that many Orthodox drink these kinds of stories in with their mothers’ milk; that some Orthodox blame the Catholic Church for the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, etc, etc, etc.

The arguments, of course, for and against such stories never resolve anything. They just go around and around and around. Better, perhaps, that Orthodox not be taught hatred of the Catholic Church to begin with. Not saying all Orthodox are, but many certainly are.

 

[Cecilianus]

Sorry, but not all old-believers are in communion with Moscow. In fact, most are not. I’ve heard Old Believers state categorically that the Muscovite and the OCA churches are schismatic and heretical… as well as all the other Nikonian churches, and the Greeks, and the Catholics. Not all, mind you… but the Old Believers are not a single body, but several different communions, including some without Holy Orders!

The Old Believers I’ve talked with are adamant that salvation only exists within their particular version of “Old Believer,” and maybe, just maybe, in certain groups of other old believers.

Likewise, canonical Orthodoxy isn’t without its issues; the MP and EP have had much sniping back and forth, threats of anathema over ecumenism… And Mt. Athos having had several monasteries refuse to commemorate the EP for some time…

Aramis, that’s my point. Phenomenologically as a Catholic I can’t see any ecclesiastical difference between “non-canonical” and “canonical” Orthodox; since what makes someone “canonical” by one criterion I saw is communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, I say that they have as much right to rebel against him as the Ecumenical Patriarch did against the Pope. And some people say they’re canonical while others say theyr’e not - the Orthodox Church of America and the Orthodox Church of Canada being examples. And then, as you’ve pointed out, “canonical” Orthodox still has its issues; the girl that told me that the Ecumenical Patriarch was regarded by the Serbian Orthodox as an apostate was herself a “canonical” Orthodox.

And you don’t have a consistent communion within canonical Orthodoxy. The Antiochians are in communion with the Orthodox Church of Canada, who aren’t in communion with Moscow, and also with the Jacobites who certainly aren’t Orthodox.

 

[ChristMK]

I wouldn’t mind the reunification considering I am Eastern Orthodox and my husband is Eastern Catholic-very similar. My husband was willing to get married in an Eastern Orthodox Church but was not willing to be baptized and get converted so we got married in an Eastern Catholic church instead. I remained Orthodox since his priest told me I didn’t have to convert go get married in the ECC.

My parents were a little disappointed since they raised me Orthodox but that is just the way things happen sometimes. They don’t mind the ECC at all now,since they realized their features are very very similar. If we can at least relax some of the canons between the two that would be at least something,such as allowing to get married in each other churches without having to convert,etc,but that may unlikely not happen. I joined this forum so I can educate myself on Catholicism more and see what similarities we DO have-compare to the other Christian religions we are the most similar as far as our teachings.

Me and my husband are trying to compromise and said he was willing to allow our future children when we have them to be baptized in an Orthodox Church-is that still possible?

 

[sidbrown]

The Melkite Church doesn’t call them Ecumenical, but doesn’t reject their teachings, either. I’ve spoken personally to our Eparch on this matter; we are not to reject the teachings of the other Councils as erroneous, regardless of their designation.

There was one Melkite Bishop who thought otherwise, but I’ve seen no evidence of other Melkite Bishops joining him.

Peace and God bless!

But are they accepted as infallible ?

 

[sidbrown]

In other words, convert to Orthodoxy. Right?

It might seem like the Orthodox want reunification on their terms, but what about the Catholics? Is it not true that Catholics want reunification on their terms also? That is why you have the impasse and no agreement up to this point in time.

 

[Cecilianus]

I wouldn’t mind the reunification considering I am Eastern Orthodox and my husband is Eastern Catholic-very similar. My husband was willing to get married in an Eastern Orthodox Church but was not willing to be baptized and get converted so we got married in an Eastern Catholic church instead. I remained Orthodox since his priest told me I didn’t have to convert go get married in the ECC.

My parents were a little disappointed since they raised me Orthodox but that is just the way things happen sometimes. They don’t mind the ECC at all now,since they realized their features are very very similar. If we can at least relax some of the canons between the two that would be at least something,such as allowing to get married in each other churches without having to convert,etc,but that may unlikely not happen. I joined this forum so I can educate myself on Catholicism more and see what similarities we DO have-compare to the other Christian religions we are the most similar as far as our teachings.

Me and my husband are trying to compromise and said he was willing to allow our future children when we have them to be baptized in an Orthodox Church-is that still possible?

No; the Catholic Church requires that the children of a Catholic be raised Catholic - your husband (presuming he is aware of this) would be committing a sin according to our canons by baptizing your children in a church separated from communion with the See of Peter (another reason why I would like reunion!). Since you have a mixed marriage, he was supposed to promise the pastor who married you that the children would be raised Catholic before you got married.

The faith between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics is the same, but the Catholic Church requires us to be in communion with the Apostolic See, and us to raise our children to be so as well.

Which ethnicities are your churches? I’m Ukrainian Catholic.

 

[sidbrown]

No; the Catholic Church requires that the children of a Catholic be raised Catholic - your husband (presuming he is aware of this) would be committing a sin according to our canons by baptizing your children in a church separated from communion with the See of Peter (another reason why I would like reunion!). Since you have a mixed marriage, he was supposed to promise the pastor who married you that the children would be raised Catholic before you got married.

The faith between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics is the same, but the Catholic Church requires us to be in communion with the Apostolic See, and us to raise our children to be so as well.

Which ethnicities are your churches? I’m Ukrainian Catholic.

The Catholic Church requires that the children be raised Catholic but the Orthodox Church requires that the children be raised Orthodox. So in either case, you are caught in the schism.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The letter is a list of grievous sins and their appropriate ecclesial penalties.

Why would he specify the lengths of excommunications for people attempting second or third marriages? Why would they have to repent and show proof of it before they are restored to communion?

Can you provide something that doesn’t contradict the point you’re attempting to make?

Apparently you don’t understand the point I was making.

The practice St Basil outlines is almost identical to Orthodox practice today. St Basil said divorce was a grievous sin, the Orthodox Church believes it is a grievous sin. St Basil allowed for digamy (second marriage) and trigamy (third marriage). The Orthodox Church, just like St Basil, allows for a second and in extreme circumstances a third marriage. St Basil prescribes one year excommunication for a second marriage and three or four years for a third. Orthodox bishops often prescribe one year excommunication for second and third marriages. In fact the guilty party may not be granted the right to remarry and certainly must exhibit repentance before being allowed to receive again.

After reading this from St Basil, who was only reflecting practice at the time, can anyone possibly say Orthodox practice is not patristic?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[bpbasilphx]

\No; the Catholic Church requires that the children of a Catholic be raised Catholic - your husband (presuming he is aware of this) would be committing a sin according to our canons by baptizing your children in a church separated from communion with the See of Peter (another reason why I would like reunion!). Since you have a mixed marriage, he was supposed to promise the pastor who married you that the children would be raised Catholic before you got married.\

**No; the Orthodox Church requires that the children of an Orthodox be raised Orthodox - your husband (presuming he is aware of this) would be committing a sin according to our canons by baptizing your children in a church separated from communion with the See of Andrew (another reason why I would like reunion!). Since you have a mixed marriage, you were supposed to promise the pastor who married you that the children would be raised Orthodox before you got married.

Here we go round the mulberry bush.**

 

[Timbothefiveth]

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.

Forums are not always the best measure of opinion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

\No; the Catholic Church requires that the children of a Catholic be raised Catholic - your husband (presuming he is aware of this) would be committing a sin according to our canons by baptizing your children in a church separated from communion with the See of Peter (another reason why I would like reunion!). Since you have a mixed marriage, he was supposed to promise the pastor who married you that the children would be raised Catholic before you got married.\

**No; the Orthodox Church requires that the children of an Orthodox be raised Orthodox - your husband (presuming he is aware of this) would be committing a sin according to our canons by baptizing your children in a church separated from communion with the See of Andrew (another reason why I would like reunion!). Since you have a mixed marriage, you were supposed to promise the pastor who married you that the children would be raised Orthodox before you got married.

Here we go round the mulberry bush.**

Fortunately our hierarchy are now helping us recover from the dizziness by allowing certain norms to be established. For example, the Syrian Orthodox (which were in an earlier post called “Jacobite” - btw YES they are Orthodox, just not in the Eastern Orthodox Communion) Patriarch and the Pope have an agreement that in any “mixed marriage”, the children -even when baptized by the clergy of either church, will be registered as a member of the Church of the father. The families will be allowed to receive the Eucharist in both Churches, provided they are properly confessed; and marriages between the members are allowed - again with preference given to the Church of the husband, unless both agree to join one or the other church together. For marriages, funerals, family functions, and wherever morally preferential, Eucharistic sharing is allowed. Concelebration among priests is still forbidden, but the members may request and receive the Sacraments from clergy of either Church.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Fortunately our hierarchy are now helping us recover from the dizziness by allowing certain norms to be established. For example, the Syrian Orthodox (which were in an earlier post called “Jacobite” - btw YES they are Orthodox, just not in the Eastern Orthodox Communion) Patriarch and the Pope have an agreement that in any “mixed marriage”, the children -even when baptized by the clergy of either church, will be registered as a member of the Church of the father. The families will be allowed to receive the Eucharist in both Churches, provided they are properly confessed; and marriages between the members are allowed - again with preference given to the Church of the husband, unless both agree to join one or the other church together. For marriages, funerals, family functions, and wherever morally preferential, Eucharistic sharing is allowed. Concelebration among priests is still forbidden, but the members may request and receive the Sacraments from clergy of either Church.

From a pastoral standpoint I’ve seen similar things in my parish. I know of one couple in which the father is Catholic and the mother is Orthodox where the young children are allowed to receive in both parishes. I also know of one instance in which it was recommended that a person not convert to Orthodoxy because it was causing a tremendous strain in the couple’s relationship. They were both Catholic.

We have many Orthodox/Catholic intermarriages in our parish and each case is considered individually and with pastoral discretion. There are lots of situations in which the canons are not applied strictly.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

It might seem like the Orthodox want reunification on their terms, but what about the Catholics? Is it not true that Catholics want reunification on their terms also? That is why you have the impasse and no agreement up to this point in time.

Of course both Churches want reunion of their own terms. The biggest difference I see is Catholics demand that we personally submit to a their patriarch, which seems arrogant and condescending (although I know they don’t mean it that way), and the Orthodox demand that we all submit to the common teaching of the Fathers as laid out by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.

During the time of the Councils there was no dogma of Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and no filioque in the Creed at Rome. All Rome has to do is return to the teachings that we once held in common and we could have unity.

Yours in Christ
Joe