Dual Unity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Augustine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Augustine

Guest
Found on Rorate Caeli:
From the Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU), a project of the Ukrainian Catholic University:
Patriarch of Constantinople Proposes Eastern Catholicism’s Return to Orthodoxy
Click to expand...
Munich—In a recent interview with the German ecumenical journal Cyril and Methodius, the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church in Constantinople Bartholomew I invited Eastern Catholic Churches to return to Orthodoxy without breaking unity with Rome. He noted that “the Constantinople Mother-Church keeps the door open for all its sons and daughters.” According to the Orthodox hierarch, the form of coexistence of the Byzantine Church and the Roman Church in the 1st century (perhaps what is meant here is 1st millennium – CAP) of Christianity should be used as a model of unity. This story was posted by KATH.net on 16 June 2008.
Click to expand...
At the same time, the patriarch made positive remarks about the idea of “dual unity” proposed by the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Archbishop Lubomyr (Husar). Patriarch Bartholomew I noted in particular that this model would help to overcome the schism between the Churches
Click to expand...
.
 
I haven’t thought about it much yet. All I’ll say right now is that it is not without precedent.

In the 4th century, for instance, St. Basil (and by extension his own see) was in communion with both the See of Antioch and the See of Rome, but the Sees of Antioch and Rome were not in communion with each other.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
In the 4th century, for instance, St. Basil (and by extension his own see) was in communion with both the See of Antioch and the See of Rome, but the Sees of Antioch and Rome were not in communion with each other.
Click to expand...
Hi marduk,

Was that for doctrinal reasons? If so, what?
 
I do not understand the details or what is really happeneing.

All I can say is that this brings great warmth to my heart and I ask all of here to pray for all the leaders involved for wisdom and understanding that ultimately leads to unity.

This is the best news in perhaps a millennium.

:signofcross::byzsoc:
 
wynd said:
Hi marduk,

Was that for doctrinal reasons? If so, what?
Click to expand...
Partly.

The IMMEDIATE source of the conflict was purely ecclesiastical -there was a mix-up between who was the actual bishop of the See of Antioch, since both seems to have been consecrated at about the same time without the knowledge of the other. Thus, there were two bishops of Antioch at the time. One was in communion with Rome (Paulinus), while the other one was not (Meletius). Now, Basil, while being in communion with Rome, was in communion with Meletius, the bishop who was NOT in communion with Rome.

However, the PRIMARY source of the conflict was doctrinal. Meletius was in communion with Semi-Arians, though Meletius himself was orthodox. The party of Paulinus were hard-liners who did not feel Meletius was worthy because of his softness on the Semi-Arians.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
40.png
Peter_J:
All I can say is, wow.

Full article: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186

P.S. I’m starting this thread in the Non-Catholics Religions forum, not because I don’t want to hear EC opinions on this (I am very interested in hearing from both Byzantine and Oriental Catholics, not to mention Latin Catholics) but because I’d also like to hear non-Catholic opinions, EO especially.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to figure out the theoretical mechanism for such a movement for some time now.

As my beloved brother Marduk points out, it is not without precedent. But things are not quite as simple as they once were.

K’yiv itself maintained communion with both Rome and Constantinople for a good many years after 1054AD as I understand it. Antioch as well for a few decades (I think). But these were not dealing with the complications of a formal Universal Jurisdiction claim, these synods were acting pretty much on their own and yet with the acquiesence of both Rome and Constantinople…

MY first thought was that granting the eastern Catholic churches autocephaly would make this kind of scheme eventually possible. (I ran it up the flagpole a few times, half in jest, but it seems nobody was receptive.) However, I am actually quite skeptical at this point. Like I said things seem more complicated now than they were so many centuries ago. 🤷

I note that the article did say…
Patriarch Bartholomew expressed distinct interest in the idea, saying that “the mother Church in Constantinople holds the doors open for the return of all her former sons and daughters.”
Click to expand...
Is it possible that Catholics will miss the import of such a pregnant phrase?..
Cardinal Lubomyr Husar of Kiev, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church-- the largest of the Eastern Catholic churches-- had offered the possibility that Byzantine Catholics might seek communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, without giving up their communion with the Holy See.
Click to expand...
This does not address the actual relationship the UGCC would have with Rome and leaves some questions to be answered such as…

  1. *]Would the UGCC still be under the Pope, or merely in communion with the Pope?
    *]Would the UGCC still be bound to affirm Latin theological constructs as valid and binding upon it’s own following? I would presume so, if it is not specifically addressed, but is that what the EP is presuming in his statement?
    *]Would the idea be for a corporate merger of the ecclesiastical structures in Ukraine, or for parallel structures with open communion between them? If they intend to share one Patriarch I would assume that we are thinking of a corporate merger without overlapping eparchies, but then what happens to point #1 and #2 ?
    *]What does this do to the concept of Universal Jurisdiction as claimed by the Latin Patriarchate? Are Catholics reading this like it further extends to the Orthodox in Ukraine while Bartholomew may be reading it like it is removed from the UGCC?
    *]What would this do to the diaspora UGCC? Will it’s bishops still be appointed by the Pope? Would it be severed from the deal because it is not actually in Ukraine?
    And finally, although I hate to bring it up, would this be received well in the conservative TradLat community? Would it be condemned as a Melkite influenced malady?..a slippery slope?..an impending disaster?

    Michael
 
Hesychios said:
And finally, although I hate to bring it up, would this be received well in the conservative TradLat community?
Click to expand...
Probably not. I wouldn’t be surprised if “traditionalist” Catholics are already pointing to this article saying “See? See? The EP is out to snare all of us, starting with the Eastern Catholics.”

But so what? From my point of view, it will just be another entry in their list of things to complain about.
 
Hesychios said:
I have been trying to figure out the theoretical mechanism for such a movement for some time now.

As my beloved brother Marduk points out, it is not without precedent. But things are not quite as simple as they once were.

K’yiv itself maintained communion with both Rome and Constantinople for a good many years after 1054AD as I understand it. Antioch as well for a few decades (I think). But these were not dealing with the complications of a formal Universal Jurisdiction claim, these synods were acting pretty much on their own and yet with the acquiesence of both Rome and Constantinople…

MY first thought was that granting the eastern Catholic churches autocephaly would make this kind of scheme eventually possible. (I ran it up the flagpole a few times, half in jest, but it seems nobody was receptive.) However, I am actually quite skeptical at this point. Like I said things seem more complicated now than they were so many centuries ago. 🤷

I note that the article did say…
Is it possible that Catholics will miss the import of such a pregnant phrase?..
Click to expand...

I didn’t - so I doubt anyone else will; least of all Catholics of other Rites​

This does not address the actual relationship the UGCC would have with Rome and leaves some questions to be answered such as…

  1. *]Would the UGCC still be under the Pope, or merely in communion with the Pope?
    *]Would the UGCC still be bound to affirm Latin theological constructs as valid and binding upon it’s own following? I would presume so, if it is not specifically addressed, but is that what the EP is presuming in his statement?
    *]Would the idea be for a corporate merger of the ecclesiastical structures in Ukraine, or for parallel structures with open communion between them? If they intend to share one Patriarch I would assume that we are thinking of a corporate merger without overlapping eparchies, but then what happens to point #1 and #2 ?
    *]What does this do to the concept of Universal Jurisdiction as claimed by the Latin Patriarchate? Are Catholics reading this like it further extends to the Orthodox in Ukraine while Bartholomew may be reading it like it is removed from the UGCC?
    *]What would this do to the diaspora UGCC? Will it’s bishops still be appointed by the Pope? Would it be severed from the deal because it is not actually in Ukraine?
    And finally, although I hate to bring it up, would this be received well in the conservative TradLat community? Would it be condemned as a Melkite influenced malady?..a slippery slope?..an impending disaster?

    Michael
Click to expand...

  1. If the logic of this were followed, it is not clear why Catholics could not be in union with at least those “High” Anglicans whose orders were valid from Rome’s POV. After all, if Rome can accept a situation in which Catholics are in union with an Orthodox bishop, despite the absence of entire doctrinal agreement, it is not clear why the same situation could not obtain between Rome & at least some other Christians.​

    As for your question - people must do what they believe they should. I’ve given up trying to make sense of Rome’s doings; it’s not as though we squaddies can do anything about them. 🙂
 

If the logic of this were followed, it is not clear why Catholics could not be in union with at least those “High” Anglicans whose orders were valid from Rome’s POV.​

Click to expand...
the biggest reason is that the anglicans, high or low, are heretics–protestants. they are not even considered a church in the proper sense like the orthdox christians are.

the orthodox are schismatic, a completely different situation. plus, it’s not clear who, if any, of the anglicans have valid orders. the clergy would all need to be conditionally reordained.
 
So I just came across this article and was quite surprised. Have any of you heard of this in the past or is it something new?

I don’t see how the BC would be able to be in communion with the EO & RCC without the EO being in communion with the RCC? I don’t know how the EO churches are going to take this type of talk. Maybe they’re open to it already??? However with how things have been going with the Moscow Patriarchate who knows. What do you guys think?

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59186
 
It was interesting to read that. I have recently gotten the impression that the real stickler in talking ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox has been the Russian Patriarchate. I would hope that if such a unity, as proposed by the Ukrainian Church, does exist, that it would only work towards re-uniting the Orthodox Churches with Rome. But I am not sure how one would go about full-Communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy. The Ukrainian Church is as much a part of the Catholic Church as any other sui juris Church is. So…wouldn’t union with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church be union with Rome? At the very least, it’s the starting point for discussing just how much inter-Communion can exist between Rome and Orthodoxy.
 
just to follow up on Nic’s point, is it really imaginable, from the Catholic side, that…I, who attend the UGCC, could find myself in communion with Rome and Moscow, but my Roman Rite neighbor is NOT in communion with Moscow. That just sounds like a recipe for ecclesial chaos. [mind you, i am not saying it should be ruled out; i am simply asking if it is even a conceivable possibility].
 
invocation said:
just to follow up on Nic’s point, is it really imaginable, from the Catholic side, that…I, who attend the UGCC, could find myself in communion with Rome and Moscow, but my Roman Rite neighbor is NOT in communion with Moscow. That just sounds like a recipe for ecclesial chaos. [mind you, i am not saying it should be ruled out; i am simply asking if it is even a conceivable possibility].
Click to expand...
The orthodox churches have that mixture already one Church recognize one but the other doesn’t. go to the bottom of the link and you will [see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy)

That sounds like great news but you’ll see a lot of smoke coming out of Russia on this.
 
Dear brother Hesychios,

Can you please clear up some space in your PM mailbox? I would like to send you a PM regarding this topic. Please PM me when you have done so. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Hesychios said:
This does not address the actual relationship the UGCC would have with Rome and leaves some questions to be answered such as…

  1. *]Would the UGCC still be under the Pope, or merely in communion with the Pope?
    *]Would the UGCC still be bound to affirm Latin theological constructs as valid and binding upon it’s own following? I would presume so, if it is not specifically addressed, but is that what the EP is presuming in his statement?
    *]Would the idea be for a corporate merger of the ecclesiastical structures in Ukraine, or for parallel structures with open communion between them? If they intend to share one Patriarch I would assume that we are thinking of a corporate merger without overlapping eparchies, but then what happens to point #1 and #2 ?
    *]What does this do to the concept of Universal Jurisdiction as claimed by the Latin Patriarchate? Are Catholics reading this like it further extends to the Orthodox in Ukraine while Bartholomew may be reading it like it is removed from the UGCC?
    *]What would this do to the diaspora UGCC? Will it’s bishops still be appointed by the Pope? Would it be severed from the deal because it is not actually in Ukraine?
Click to expand...

  1. All good questions.

    I haven’t come up with any answers yet; plus I’ve recently decided to take a “short vacation” from the Catholic Answers Forum (or perhaps more of a “long weekend” :)). But I hope to have some helpful things to say about these questions when I return.

    One question (or point to ponder) that I’d like to ask: both the Catholic World News article and the RISU article single out the UGCC; but does that necessarily mean that Patriarch Bartholomew singled out the UGCC?

    May you all have a happy and blessed weekend,
    Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top