S
sidbrown
Guest
This revision has caused a whole lot of problems.
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Local church???
Yes, it is a digression from the OP, so I will just agree with you regarding the fact that both the CC and the EOC can’t both be speaking infallibly when it comes to the same teaching with which they disagree.
J
joe370
Guest
Well, if you think the CC is pushing error on your church, and therefore cannot forgive, then I guess you can’t forgive. I guess there is nothing more to say.
J
joe370
Guest
Which liturgical revisions bother you?All of this revision, this is why I’m more comfortable being Orthodox…
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Local Church is a term meaning an individual autocephalous or autonomous church. In this example the Church of Rome.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Which is the whole core of this discussion.
J
joe370
Guest
Autocephalous and autonomous are not the same according to the EOC:
An “autocephalous” Church is completely self-governing. It elects its own primate and has the right to consecrate its own Holy Chrism, among other prerogatives unique to autocephalous Churches. [The term “autocephalous” literally means “self-heading.”]
An “autonomous” Church is self-governing to a certain degree in its internal matters, but its head is appointed or confirmed by the autocephalous Church which nurtures it. An autonomous Church also receives its Holy Chrism from its “Mother Church.”
J
joe370
Guest
I am not sure what autocephalous or autonomous has to do with the CC in comunnion with Rome?
Orthodox wiki:
The autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches are those churches which have self-government. These churches also constitute what is generally known simply as the Orthodox Church, but may also be referred to as the mainstream Orthodox Church or world Orthodoxy. They all recognize one another and are in full communion with each other.
That they constitute the “mainstream” (i.e., that they are legitimately and/or exclusively Orthodox) is disputed by a number of groups with whom they are not in communion, such as most of the Old Calendarists.
Despite these churches all being in communion with one another, there is not currently unanimous agreement on which churches are considered autocephalous or autonomous. There is, however, an order which is followed in international Inter-Orthodox gatherings, which is included here first. There is an expanded order which is recognized by some churches, most notably the Church of Russia and its dependencies and historical daughter churches.
Orthodox wiki:
The autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches are those churches which have self-government. These churches also constitute what is generally known simply as the Orthodox Church, but may also be referred to as the mainstream Orthodox Church or world Orthodoxy. They all recognize one another and are in full communion with each other.
That they constitute the “mainstream” (i.e., that they are legitimately and/or exclusively Orthodox) is disputed by a number of groups with whom they are not in communion, such as most of the Old Calendarists.
Despite these churches all being in communion with one another, there is not currently unanimous agreement on which churches are considered autocephalous or autonomous. There is, however, an order which is followed in international Inter-Orthodox gatherings, which is included here first. There is an expanded order which is recognized by some churches, most notably the Church of Russia and its dependencies and historical daughter churches.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Yes, but they would both be local.
The roughly equivalent term in Papal talk is “Particular church”
H
Hesychios
Guest
I know this is off the line of thought you and Nine_Two were following, but in the Papal communion, there is one autocephalous church (the Metropolitan church of the city of Rome) and a bunch of autonomous churches (over twenty) attached to it, like dependencies.
The Orthodox communion has about sixteen autocephalous churches and some of these have autonomous dependencies.
The whole concept of what constitutes communion is different between us.
If the Papacy was to join the Orthodox communion, from the Orthodox perspective it would be one of perhaps seventeen other autocephalous churches.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Hesychios…
That makes sense!
That too makes sense, if they were to join the Orthodox communion. How do you think it would work, structurally speaking, if the Orthodox communion joined the one autocephalous church, which is the Metropolitan church of the city of Rome, and her 23 autonomous churches, assuming that the EOC and the CC could finally reconcile their differences?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That is exactly the issue, that is unacceptable for us, which is why I said earlier one of the first, and biggest, issues that has to be solved is whose vision of union are we talking about?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I should qualify this…
The underlying issue of the Great Schism was ultimately the Church of Rome interfering with the autocephaly of the other Churches.
Later, when the Turks conquered Constantinople they put the Patriarch there over all the Greek and Slavic Christians in their territory (Armenians and Copts had their own ethnarchs). The established Churches in the Balkans were closed in favour of the Greek Church, while the ancient Patriarchates in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria essentially became rungs on the ladder to Constantinople. During this time we only had three truely Autocephalous Churches, Constantinople, Moscow, and Georgia. Constantinople was used as an instrument of the state, and Moscow would soon lose much of its independence. Georgia, despite being a very ancient see, would eventually be merged into Moscow.
With the fall of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago the Greek and Slavic churches have finally been able to reassert themselves. With the Fall of the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, Georgia was able to reassert itself.
Autocephaly is something that is very important to the Churches of the Orthodox Communion, in no small part because the Local Churches all know what it is to lose it. The example of the Eastern Catholics prior to Vatican II do not help to reassure us.
J
joe370
Guest
Well, clearly it’s not up to us as members of the EOC and the CC respectively. It’s up to the leadership of both the CC and the EOC to reach some sort of reconciliation. However, if the EOC continues to say things like, that is unacceptable for us, and the CC continues to say things like, that is unacceptable for us, I do believe, when Jesus returns, things will be just as they are now. I suppose prayer is our greatest weapon. Take care nine.
S
sidbrown
Guest
From the Orthodox perspective, what would be required of the Papacy for it to “join the Orthodox communion”?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I know you seek to end this dialogue, but you bring up another issue right there, the laity of the Orthodox Church certainly does have some say.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The Papacy must acknowledge it is one of many, that the Petrine ministry is held by all Bishops, though Rome may have special claim to a primacy among them.
Finally, and the big one, it must renounce as doctrine any belief not held as doctrine by the Orthodox Communion. This doesn’t, by the way, necessarily mean renouncing the beliefs themselves.
S
sidbrown
Guest
And that’s it? There will be reunion immediately after that?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Hahaha. I love that reaction. “That’s it?” Well, Sid…I admire your optimism. Can I take it as a sign that you are willing to reject the doctrines particular to Rome that separate it from Orthodox Church?
And I have to agree with Nine_Two that it is not appropriate to treat the laity as though they have no say. To take a different position that would rob the laity of a voice in such a monumental undertaking seems to me to bear out what I once read on here from an Orthodox member: The Eastern Orthodox cannot live with a Pope, and Roman Catholics cannot live without one. You need to have Rome tell you when it’s right to agree with the Orthodox?
And I have to agree with Nine_Two that it is not appropriate to treat the laity as though they have no say. To take a different position that would rob the laity of a voice in such a monumental undertaking seems to me to bear out what I once read on here from an Orthodox member: The Eastern Orthodox cannot live with a Pope, and Roman Catholics cannot live without one. You need to have Rome tell you when it’s right to agree with the Orthodox?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No, Rome would have to wait for the Eastern Patriarchs to recover from their shock before anything further could happen.
- Status