Does Every Latin Catholic want unity

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GrzeszDeL:

The Church is, by definition, indefectible; if we were to agree that the Pope is not the head of the whole Church militant, or the infallible vicar of Christ on Earth, then we would be admitting that the Catholic Church had made a serious mistake in a matter of faith.

Doesn’t the Balamand Declaration add up to such an admission ?​

Before: Orthodox need to be converted to Catholicism.
After: Don’t try to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism.

I would love to know what theological-canonical authority & weight the BD is supposed to have.

Even the Pope can’t make contradictory propositions both true in the same sense

Possible cause: confusion among the Vatican congregations. Result - confusion among the squaddies: us IOW, a lack of joined-up theology and practice. ##

A council cannot be ecumenical in Rome but not ecumenical in Kiev. If a council is ecumenical then it is binding on everyone.

Maybe there is something in the detail of the laws concerning such Councils which would help us out of this deadlock.​

There is still IIRC disagreement about the ecumenicity of the Council in Trullo of 692; Rome never accepted all of its canons, just some. And there is the status of Constantinople IV in 869-70, which Rome, but not Constantinople, recognises as Ecumenical.

Some Orthodox Saints - Peter the Aleut for example - were martyred by RCs. And conversely. And some, such as Michael Cerularios, or Mark of Ephesus, have symbolic importance as being anti-Roman, not least in doctrine. Of course, if some Saints are treated as rogues and scoundrels by one Church, and therefore not actively honoured (though considered Saints by another Church who does honour them), then perhaps this won’t be a problem.
It would be very interesting to know whether the principle of economy could cover these difficulties: another of which, is the extent of the Canon. To this day, at least one ancient Church - the Copts ? - has no Revelation in the NT. It’s not immediately clear how Psalm 151 can be inspired & canonical in Constantinople - neither inspired nor canonical in Rome.

A lot of difficulties which look insoluble, turn out on closer inspection to be perfectly capable of solution. Sometimes they turn out to be even more involved than at first they seemed. ##

Reunion presumes that we all agree on the status of the 21 councils which we Catholics regard as ecumenical, and if such an agreement is reached by declaring that some of those 21 are not ecumenical, then the Catholic Church is a fraud and there is no sense in pretending otherwise.

Thinking of compromises which could be achieved, however, within the framework of the Faith which has been handed on to us from the Apostles, I wonder if the various Papal claims could be made more acceptable to the Orthodox if we agreed to shift the seat of the Apostolic See to some other jurisdiction instead of Rome? For instance, what if we all agreed to move the See of Peter to Moscow, and to look to the Moscow Patriarch as the infallible head of the whole Church militant? One way or another, however, I know that the successor of Peter must be the head of the Church, and I would oppose a reconciliation which soft-peddles this truth with the last breath from my lips.

If headship turned out to be a claim to wider servantship, possibly - but the Orthodox are very unlikely ever to accept the teaching of Vatican I on the right of universal oversight claimed for the Pope. And the recent(ish) shenanigans with the Roman Liturgy are a further deterrent to any confidence the Orthodox might have in Rome’s good faith.​

Maybe the basic problem is a fundamental difference of approach. And, perhaps, if we grow apart for long enough, we shall find ourselves meeting again ##

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Melchior:

But if we are going to ask if there is going to be a reunion between Catholics and Orthodox we need first ask which Orthodox.

With the proper and canonical Orthodox Churches - the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexnadria, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece… etc.

Foa quick reference list of the canonical Orthodox Churches in the States
aggreen.net/autocephaly/autoceph.html

In short you can’t have unity with a church that is not “one”.

This has been discussed before. You are falling into the same misapprehension as Cardinal Kasper did recently and which I addressed on another thread about authority in the Orthodox Church…

The Cardinal even went so far as to say: “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist” - which is, on the face of it, a rather unusual lapse in good manners and diplomacy by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Of course, what he probably had in mind and wanted to say was that he wishes that the Orthodox had the same ecclesiological paradigm of “church” as his own does. This would make ecumenical business so much easier if it were so, but the fact is that the “structure” of the Orthodox Church (maybe better to say Churches) is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a small essay penned in response to Cardinal’s moment of
confusion. I don’t know if he has ever seen it but it may help towards
mutual understanding in this discussion.

**An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper: **
**‘The Orthodox Church does not really exist.’
**
orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

With the proper and canonical Orthodox Churches - the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexnadria, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece… etc.

Foa quick reference list of the canonical Orthodox Churches in the States
aggreen.net/autocephaly/autoceph.html

This has been discussed before. You are falling into the same misapprehension as Cardinal Kasper did recently and which I addressed on another thread about authority in the Orthodox Church…

The Cardinal even went so far as to say: “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist” - which is, on the face of it, a rather unusual lapse in good manners and diplomacy by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Of course, what he probably had in mind and wanted to say was that he wishes that the Orthodox had the same ecclesiological paradigm of “church” as his own does. This would make ecumenical business so much easier if it were so, but the fact is that the “structure” of the Orthodox Church (maybe better to say Churches) is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a small essay penned in response to Cardinal’s moment of
confusion. I don’t know if he has ever seen it but it may help towards
mutual understanding in this discussion.

**An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper: **
’The Orthodox Church does not really exist.'

[orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm](http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm)

It makes for interesting reading - TY for posting it ​

I am still trying to work out whether the author was suggesting, by his frequent employment of the word “secular”, than the Roman Communion is secular.

In defence of the Cardinal: if the notion of Orthodoxy he - and Rome ? - gets from ecumenical meetings is one unlike that underlined by the author of that article, is he really to blame ? One of the more distressing things one finds on occasion is that, apparently, what the Patriarch Athenagoras did in 1964 is regarded as nothing less than a betrayal by some Orthodox. The mutual lifting of anathemas in that year seems to count for nothing. It’s very hard to know what Orthodoxy is, if those who interpret it are denounced by their own co-religionists. I think the same could be said of Catholicism - ecumenism is a red rag to some people But such is life - It’s important not to take these things too seriously, IMO ##

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Gottle of Geer:

One of the more distressing things one finds on occasion is that, apparently, what the Patriarch Athenagoras did in 1964 is regarded as nothing less than a betrayal by some Orthodox. The mutual lifting of anathemas in that year seems to count for nothing. It’s very hard to know what Orthodoxy is, if those who interpret it are denounced by their own co-religionists.

Orthodoxy is a communion of Churches which hold the same faith but are administratively independent. No one Patriarch has authority to lift such major anathemas which although originally involving the Church of Constantinople came to affect all the holy Churches of the East. There needed to be a gathering of the heads of the Orthodox Churches and a conciliar decision should have been reached. By acting unilaterally Patriarch Athenagoras offended his brother Patriarchs.

Neither Rome nor Constantinople have actually “followed through.” The lifiting of anathemas leads to the reestablishment of communion but this has not occured in this case.

 

[Melchior]

Fr Ambrose:

With the proper and canonical Orthodox Churches - the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexnadria, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece… etc.

Foa quick reference list of the canonical Orthodox Churches in the States
aggreen.net/autocephaly/autoceph.html

This has been discussed before. You are falling into the same misapprehension as Cardinal Kasper did recently and which I addressed on another thread about authority in the Orthodox Church…

The Cardinal even went so far as to say: “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist” - which is, on the face of it, a rather unusual lapse in good manners and diplomacy by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Of course, what he probably had in mind and wanted to say was that he wishes that the Orthodox had the same ecclesiological paradigm of “church” as his own does. This would make ecumenical business so much easier if it were so, but the fact is that the “structure” of the Orthodox Church (maybe better to say Churches) is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a small essay penned in response to Cardinal’s moment of
confusion. I don’t know if he has ever seen it but it may help towards
mutual understanding in this discussion.

**An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper: **
**‘The Orthodox Church does not really exist.’
**
orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

So can a member of ROCOR commune with at an Antiochian, OCA or GOA church?

The problem is not all Orthodox churches agree on who is canonical.

Mel

 

[ybeayf]

So can a member of ROCOR commune with at an Antiochian, OCA or GOA church?

Yep. A family in my parish recently had their new daughter baptized, and the godparents were all from the local OCA parish. We have visitors from other jurisdictions all the time, and they are very welcome to commune; likewise, we are free to commune (with the usual preparations) at any other Orthodox church.

 

[ybeayf]

The Orthodox churches have a western rite.

Not only that, but we also have the Old Believer rite, which to my knowledge the Catholics do not have.

 

[Amadeus]

I think the problem to the Orthodox position, as far as Church governance is concerned, lies in their continued failure, or blind refusal, to admit that administrative unity should be a manifestation of “unity in faith.”

Conversely, adminstrative disunity is a bane, and a heavy burden, on that elusive goal of establishing a united, and credible, Orthodox Church, in the singular.

The OCA experiment is a vain attempt at mimicking the Catholic homogeneity in the U.S. (and globally). Even then, there are many Orthodox jurisidictions, ethnic-based all, who have not joined up with the OCA.

Those talks of re-evangelizing North America and the rest of the “Western” world to the Eastern expression of Christianity notwithstanding, the non-Orthodox are just perplexed and mystified at the current truncated jurisdictions in Orthodoxy. (This could be said of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but to a lesser degree.)

Common and joint worship among the various ethnic-based Orthodox Churches is a rare exception. Sharing of clergy is minimal. I am, therefore, amazed at how the Orthodox then define the “One” Church.

On this score, I could emphatize easily with Cardinal Kasper’s frustration.

 

[Melchior]

ybeayf:

Yep. A family in my parish recently had their new daughter baptized, and the godparents were all from the local OCA parish. We have visitors from other jurisdictions all the time, and they are very welcome to commune; likewise, we are free to commune (with the usual preparations) at any other Orthodox church.

How about ROCA and others? Is ROCOR in communion with everyone that the Antiochians, GOA’s and OCA’s are in communion with? If you say yes, I would ask if you are sure?

Or more plainly are all Orhtodox churches in communion with each? The definate answer is no. Which was my point. No communion. No real unity.

Also, it is a violation of Orthodox canon law to have more than one jurisidiction in a country. How are several Orhtodox Churches in America justifiable two or more generations removed? How was it ever justifiable given the canons strict prohibition?

This disunity is apparent. I was reading a popular Greek-American weekly the other day and one Greek Orthodox writer was criticizing the OCA for being pro-life. I know this was just an opinion and not in line with Orthodox teaching but it is just an example of the complete disunity among American Orthodox alone.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

The issue of Fruit (a spinoff from my last post):

What of unity of love and fellowship? I often hear it said that the Orthodox are united in dogma. But what is dogma without love and outreach? One must admit that the Orthodox are way behind Catholics and Protestants in Evangelism and charity (both historically and currently). All these things matter. It is interesting to note that the best hospital in Greece, an Orthodox country, is Catholic. I point this out because there must be something fundamentally different in outlook between the two churches. One is the worlds greatest charitable organization and has always excelled in medicine and care for the poor on a grand scale. In this regard the Catholic church is superior to both Orthodox and Protestants. Fruits matter. And I am a Protestant so I am not being a biased Catholic. I am just pointing out somethings that stand out to me.

Mel

 

[ybeayf]

How about ROCA and others? Is ROCOR in communion with everyone that the Antiochians, GOA’s and OCA’s are in communion with? If you say yes, I would ask if you are sure?

ROCA and ROCOR are the same thing (which is also what jurisdiction I am in). Laity are free to receive the mysteries in any Orthodox church, it is only the clergy that cannot concelebrate. And ROCOR is in full communion with the churches of Serbia and Jerusalem (i.e. clergy can concelebrate). God willing, by early next year ROCOR and the Church of Russia will have reunified, and all Orthodox will once again be in full communion.

Or more plainly are all Orhtodox churches in communion with each? The definate answer is no. Which was my point. No communion. No real unity.

All Orthodox churches are in communion with each other with the exception of ROCOR, which is only in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem. This break in communion, though, is a temporary situation that was caused by the communist takeover in Russia, and hopefully will be ending very soon.

Also, it is a violation of Orthodox canon law to have more than one jurisidiction in a country. How are several Orhtodox Churches in America justifiable two or more generations removed?

It’s not justifiable, and everybody knows it. We are working on remedying the situation, but things like this take time.

How was it ever justifiable given the canons strict prohibition?

Until the communist revolution, all Orthodox in North America were under the Russian Church. After the revolution, the Russian hierarchs were recalled to Russia and the church in America (along with most of the rest of the world) was thrown into chaos; ethnic parishes, which had previously been under Moscow, went under the omophorion of their respective old country churches. This is how the overlapping jurisdictions in America came to be, and now that the original reason for it (the Russian church not being free) is over, there is no longer any good reason to maintain it, and so we are working on it.

 

[ybeayf]

One must admit that the Orthodox are way behind Catholics and Protestants in Evangelism and charity (both historically and currently).

At the same time the Catholics were evangelizing Latin America, the Russians were evangelizing Siberia and Central Asia, as well as Alaska. There used to be a thriving Orthodox community in China and Manchuria, until they were mostly killed off during the Boxer Rebellion and later, the Cultural Revolution. Heck, my parish’s patron saint is St. Jonah of Hankow (in Manchuria). There still is a well-established and autonomous Church of Japan, and there are many Orthodox of native descent in Alaska still.

The Greek churches spent most of the last millenium under Turkish domination, so they have not had as much opportunity to evangelize, but in the past century hundreds of thousands of people have been received into the church in Africa (especially in Uganda and Kenya), and current efforts are being made in bringing the Church to Indonesia and Korea, among other places. The Orthodox are not sitting idle.

 

[Melchior]

ybeayf:

All Orthodox churches are in communion with each other with the exception of ROCOR, which is only in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem.

Huh? You said the exact opposite in your post above. This was my point, that ROCOR is not in communion with most other Orthodox bodies. Therefore they are different churches.

It’s not justifiable, and everybody knows it. We are working on remedying the situation, but things like this take time.
Until the communist revolution, all Orthodox in North America were under the Russian Church. After the revolution, the Russian hierarchs were recalled to Russia and the church in America (along with most of the rest of the world) was thrown into chaos; ethnic parishes, which had previously been under Moscow, went under the omophorion of their respective old country churches. This is how the overlapping jurisdictions in America came to be, and now that the original reason for it (the Russian church not being free) is over, there is no longer any good reason to maintain it, and so we are working on it.

So how does this account for the other Orthodox churches violating the canon prior to the Russian Revolution? Churches that did come were violating the canons. Even though they were few back then. Why didn’t the appropriate Patriarchates establish contact with the existing Orhtodox Church in America? Did they imply ignored the canons for pragmaticism?

Mel

 

[Melchior]

ybeayf:

At the same time the Catholics were evangelizing Latin America, the Russians were evangelizing Siberia and Central Asia, as well as Alaska. There used to be a thriving Orthodox community in China and Manchuria, until they were mostly killed off during the Boxer Rebellion and later, the Cultural Revolution. Heck, my parish’s patron saint is St. Jonah of Hankow (in Manchuria). There still is a well-established and autonomous Church of Japan, and there are many Orthodox of native descent in Alaska still.

The Greek churches spent most of the last millenium under Turkish domination, so they have not had as much opportunity to evangelize, but in the past century hundreds of thousands of people have been received into the church in Africa (especially in Uganda and Kenya), and current efforts are being made in bringing the Church to Indonesia and Korea, among other places. The Orthodox are not sitting idle.

Fair enough. But the Greek Church and many of the others have been free for quite a long time. If it was the situation with the Russian Church I would get it. But the Greece has been free for generations. I know Independent Protestant Churches that have existed for a decade that have done considerable evangelism.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Orthodoxy for mnay reasons. But I do think that thoughout it’s history, Orthodoxy has missed many opportunities. Whereas other Christian churches have thrived under persecution. Perhaps this hase to do with the nationalistic character of Orthodoxy? Whereas the Catholic Church is more free due to it’s international outlook. Just thinking out loud at this point.

Mel

 

[ybeayf]

Huh? You said the exact opposite in your post above. This was my point, that ROCOR is not in communion with most other Orthodox bodies. Therefore they are different churches.

No. The clergy do not concelebrate (again, with the exception of Serbia and Jerusalem), but the laity may receive the mysteries in any of the jurisdictions. I can commune at the Antiochian church down the road, but my priest cannot serve there at this time.

So how does this account for the other Orthodox churches violating the canon prior to the Russian Revolution? Churches that did come were violating the canons.

If there were any churches of other jurisdictions prior to the revolution, then they would have been in violation of the canons. The Russian Church got here first, and so the immigrants of other jurisdictions (Serbians, Greeks, Arabs) simply formed ethnic churches that were nevertheless under the omophorion of the Russian Church.

Why didn’t the appropriate Patriarchates establish contact with the existing Orhtodox Church in America?

They did. The maze of jurisdictions one sees in America at this time (OCA, Russian, Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian, etc.) simply did not exist prior to the revolution; with very few exceptions, everyone was under the Russian Church, even if they were not Russian.

 

[ybeayf]

But the Greek Church and many of the others have been free for quite a long time. If it was the situation with the Russian Church I would get it. But the Greece has been free for generations.

Another point to remember is that, historically, evangelization has gone hand-in-hand with secular expansion and imperialism, whether one is talking about the Catholics coming along with the Spaniards and Portuguese in Asia and Latin America, the Russians in Siberia, or the Anglicans in Africa. Greece, even after it won its independence from the Ottomans, had very little opportunity for expansion. Where would the evangelizers go? The areas to the north were already Orthodox. To the west was Catholic Italy, and to the south and east were Ottoman-controlled territories such as Egypt, Anatolia, and the Levant, which already had a large historical Orthodox presence. In effect, one could say that all the areas around Greece had either already been evangelized, or had a sufficiently large Orthodox presence to not warrant sending more people over from Greece.

Whereas other Christian churches have thrived under persecution.

There is a difference between thriving under persecution and being able to finance large-scale expeditions overseas. The Russians, Catholics, and Anglicans had huge secular powers behind them; the Greeks did not.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

Orthodoxy is a communion of Churches which hold the same faith but are administratively independent. No one Patriarch has authority to lift such major anathemas which although originally involving the Church of Constantinople came to affect all the holy Churches of the East. There needed to be a gathering of the heads of the Orthodox Churches and a conciliar decision should have been reached. By acting unilaterally Patriarch Athenagoras offended his brother Patriarchs.

Neither Rome nor Constantinople have actually “followed through.” The lifiting of anathemas leads to the reestablishment of communion but this has not occured in this case.

Thank you very much for clearing that one up ​

As for the lack of communion - is there any reason why there cannot be lifting of anathemas, without full intercommunion of church with church ? There is a degree of communion - albeit not communion that is perfected and fully manifested by sacramental communion.

I think the notion of fractured communion is helpful here - it isn’t self-evident that communion is only communion if it is full and complete. OTOH - one must also avoid mistaking verbal constructions for reali beings. ##

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Melchior:

So can a member of ROCOR commune with at an Antiochian, OCA or GOA church?

Yes.

The problem is not all Orthodox churches agree on who is canonical. Mel

Could you be specific?

Like the Catholics we have hundreds of wannabe Orthodox - the Orthodox Church of Saint John Coltrane in Memphis comes to mind. There is even, God help us, a White Power Orthodox Church and also a Gay Power Orthodox Church in Hawaii!!! You have Pope Pius XIII and his wannabe Catholic Church in (?) California… and there are literally hundreds of these churches - one man, his dog and a cathedral in his garage or back bedroom. For some reason this seems to be mainly in the States.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Gottle of Geer:

As for the lack of communion - is there any reason why there cannot be lifting of anathemas, without full intercommunion of church with church ? There is a degree of communion - albeit not communion that is perfected and fully manifested by sacramental communion.

I think the notion of fractured communion is helpful here - it isn’t self-evident that communion is only communion if it is full and complete. OTOH - one must also avoid mistaking verbal constructions for reali beings. ##

Orthodoxy really knows only communion and non-communion, and not any intermediate state.

That being said, Orthodox will tolerate a limited time of schism when communion is suspended between Churches, but this is not the norm at all.

The papal-patriarchal lifting of the Anathemas should have proceeded to intercommunion, but they turned out to be merely an empty gesture in terms of ecclesiological reality.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes.

Could you be specific?

Like the Catholics we have hundreds of wannabe Orthodox - the Orthodox Church of Saint John Coltrane in Memphis comes to mind. There is even, God help us, a White Power Orthodox Church and also a Gay Power Orthodox Church in Hawaii!!! You have Pope Pius XIII and his wannabe Catholic Church in (?) California… and there are literally hundreds of these churches - one man, his dog and a cathedral in his garage or back bedroom. For some reason this seems to be mainly in the States.

Of course they would be in America. This is a country founded on the protestant beliefs and the believe what you wanna believe. They are only a product of there ancestors.