Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People refer to the schism of 1054 as a single instance in time, but the divide between the East and the West extends back so much further, back as far as the Council of Nicea in 325. The schism after Chalcedon only served to temper the divide for a little while, but from the days of Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers, there were three distinct traditions that were defining their boundaries, that of Rome, that of Byzantium (later Constantinople) and that of Alexandria, and these three became what is today the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Each lays claim to ownership of the term “one Holy catholic and apostolic church” and by each’s own theological tradition they are correct.

There cannot be an assimilation of one into another, we much just concede on what we deem ecumenical and unite, and then peacefully agree to disagree on the other points as did St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Athanasius of Alexandria. We would all continue to operate in a similar manner as today except that we could receive the sacraments in each other’s church with warmth and reverence . . . ideally, that is.

In Christ.
 
mathewjoseph said:
Dear mardukm
I thin kthere is some association between Syriac orthodox church of Antioch and Coptic see of Alexandria. What do you tell of this?
Click to expand...
Those churches are in Communion with each other much like the “Eastern Orthodox” but its a more loose association. The Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Armenian, Malankaran, Churches are known as the “The Oriental Orthodox Churches”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
 
mardukm said:
This seems easy enough. Now, I’d like to present an oddly-shaped cog in the wheel:

What to do with the parallel EO jurisdictions set up alongside OO jurisdictions.

For example, in the see Alexandria. Should there be two separate jurisdictions, or just one jurisdiction, with one Patriarch providing the needs of both Traditions through patriarchal vicars?

Blessings.
Click to expand...
I have heard many Orthodox say that they would have no problem with the Coptic Pope having the sole patriarchal throne. I tend to agree. 🙂 There should not be any reason why there cannot be Coptic parishes and Greek parishes under the same hierarch.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Aramis said:
Really, I suspect that cross-communion will exist well before formal unity. I doubt formal uity on any grand scale will ever eliminate the Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I should hope not! No one is talking about eliminating any of the ancient Apostolic Churches, we are speaking of returning to the unity o fthe first millennium.
 
mardukm said:
This seems easy enough. Now, I’d like to present an oddly-shaped cog in the wheel:

What to do with the parallel EO jurisdictions set up alongside OO jurisdictions.

For example, in the see Alexandria. Should there be two separate jurisdictions, or just one jurisdiction, with one Patriarch providing the needs of both Traditions through patriarchal vicars?

Blessings.
Click to expand...
I actually thought about this once.

I would figure it would be easier on the congregation in general for things to remain just as they are, until one bishop retires or passes away. If that’s the Greek Patriarch, then the Coptic Patriarch would just assume the rest of the Greek churches. If the reverse, then the Greek Patriarch would assume the role of Coptic Patriarch (even though he’s technically already the Coptic Patriarch). 😛
 
ThuriferAcolyte said:
Somewhat related to this (though probably warranting a new thread), does the Catholic Church see the Orthodox as believing any heresies? Clearly the Orthodox see doctrines such as the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc. as heresies, so I’m wondering if Catholics see any heresies in Orthodox doctrines. I would venture to say no, if the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.
Click to expand...
I think you are mistaken in your assertion. As I understand it, they do believe as we do on these points but don’t see the need to “officially” define them. The same holds for the "filioque: in the Nicean creed. They don’t see the need to make the distinction.

BTW does anyone have a link that I can refer to in order to read about this - something new to me.
Corry
 
iamanea said:
I think you are mistaken in your assertion. As I understand it, they do believe as we do on these points but don’t see the need to “officially” define them. The same holds for the "filioque: in the Nicean creed. They don’t see the need to make the distinction.

BTW does anyone have a link that I can refer to in order to read about this - something new to me.
Corry
Click to expand...
No, we actually do disagree on these points, and the filioque is most certainly a heresy to us.
 
mardukm said:
I would love to be under the omophorion of HH Pope Shenoute III AND HH Pope Benedict XVI.

Locally, I suspect that one bishop would become the proper bishop, and the other would become a co-adjutor bishop, with the right of succession, or an auxiliary bishop.

Since the office of Patriarch and Metropolitan were canonically created, perhaps an office of co-adjutor Patriarch or Metropolitan can also be created.

Blessings
Click to expand...
For purposes of clarification:

There are three main branches of Eastern Christians, each with a Catholic Uniate Counterpart.

Assyrian Church of the East - broke with Rome after Ephesus in 431 CE - unitied with Rome prior to that (contrary to what someone stated here) by its acceptance of the 1st three ecumenical councils - Jerusalem 50 CE, Ist Constantinople 323 CE ( not sure of exact date) and 2nd Constantinople 381 CE.

Oriental Orthodox Churches 6 autocephalous churches that broke with Rome after the 5th ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451 CE. They are the Coptic, Syrian, Antiochan,
Ethiopian, Syro-Malabar (India), Eritrean. They call their heads Pope like the West does.

The Orthodox proper - loose federation of churches under the Ecumenical Particharate of Istanbul (Constantinople) - Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukranian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and many others. They broke with Rome in the “Great Schism” of 1054. They used to, at least, reject papal primacy. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no legal authority over the other autocephalous churches. He is viewed as simply the “Chairman of the Board” - a title of honor and moral authority but no power to overrule other Patriarchs - has only one vote.

Two Questions:
Does someone know of a link that I can read more on this?

Just which branch has agreed to reunite w Rome and when?

Corry
 
Cluny said:
One thing I was wondering, with the speculation regarding re-unification of the Orthodox Churches with Rome,

Actually, the Orthodox Churches were never “united with Rome” to start with, so there can be no “reunification.” This was expressed in an article by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ.: “EASTERN PRESUPPOSITION” AND WESTERN LITURGICAL RENEWAL.

Response:

Cluny:
In what sense were they never united with Rome. No, they did not share our understanding of the place/primacy of the Bishop of Rome. They were united in the sense that there was one Christian Church = The Catholic Church prior to the Nestorian controversy settled at Ephesus, the monophysite heresy settled at Chalcedon and the Great Schism of 1054. At the time of the Great Schism there had been seven ecumenical councils the Orthodox Proper (Constantinople = Greek Orthodox and those churches loosely affiliated with them). The Assyrian Church of the East rejected the decison at Ephesus, the Oriental Orthodox rejected Chalcedon, the Orthodox Proper accepted all 7 ecumenical councils and accept the doctrine taught by most of the 14 successive councils held in the Roman Church.

The Great Schism was caused more over politics than doctrine. Other than the primacy of the pope, there is little doctrinal differences between the two groups. The Orthodox do not see the need for many of our “official” definitions. They also have a higher developed sense of the place of the “sensuum fideli” - sense of the faithful in developing doctrine. They do not believe that a doctrine needs/should be defined until it is significantly and widely denied.

Corry
Click to expand...
 
Matariel said:
And Photios will have to go… :o
Click to expand...
Instead, how about Josaphat Kuntsevych, the “butcher of the Orthodox”. 👍 Not very Saintly to have the graves of Orthodox Christians dug up and their bones thrown to dogs. 🤷
 
Matariel said:
And Photios will have to go… :o
Click to expand...
Where would he go?

He and the Pope ended their days in communion with one another, plus he launched the mission program of Ss Cyril and Methodios which converted half of Europe (a project that resulted in several Roman Catholic countries, like Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland… and therefore many millions of Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics today). He is not only fully Orthodox, but fully Catholic.
Formosus said:
You mean the St. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, whose feast is celebrated by Byzantine Catholics?
Click to expand...
Why is it that every so often, some Latin Catholic takes a swipe at Saint Photios? :confused:

One would think they know better by now…

http://www.comeandseeicons.com/p/nbo01.jpg
**Saint Photios pray for us! **
 
“As regards Josaphat Kuntsevitch, I guess he will be dealt with the same way as his Orthodox counterpart, Athanasius of Brest”

This is not unique in Orthodox history.

Nilus Sorsky was a leader of the Russian medieval movement opposing ecclesiastic landownership (known as the “Non-possessors”).and was bitterly opposed by Joseph of Volokolamsk. The conflict between the Josephites and the Non-possessors led Russia to the verge of a religious civil war with each side accusing the other of heresy. While they lived, the two monks were never reconciled.

Today Nils Sorsky and Joseph of Volokolamsk are both canonized Saints.

The Church now recognizes that both men were truly holy and each side was correct in its own unigue way. God, for His own purposes, can use such divisions to purify the Faith and bring us to ultimate truth. It is now time for us to, likewise, recognize the holiness of both Saint Josaphat and Saint Athanasius, each of whom stood for a particular aspect of tradition.
 
Hesychios said:
Where would he go?

He and the Pope ended their days in communion with one another, plus he launched the mission program of Ss Cyril and Methodios which converted half of Europe (a project that resulted in several Roman Catholic countries, like Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland… and therefore many millions of Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics today). He is not only fully Orthodox, but fully Catholic. Why is it that every so often, some Latin Catholic takes a swipe at Saint Photios? :confused:

One would think they know better by now…

http://www.comeandseeicons.com/p/nbo01.jpg
**Saint Photios pray for us! **
Click to expand...
What-- ? I’ve never heard that before. I thought Photios was comdemned as a schismatic, excommunicated, and separated from the Church??? :confused:
 
trophybearer said:
Instead, how about Josaphat Kuntsevych, the “butcher of the Orthodox”. 👍 Not very Saintly to have the graves of Orthodox Christians dug up and their bones thrown to dogs. 🤷
Click to expand...
Or to be shot by an Eastern Orthodox mob… 😉
 
Matariel said:
What-- ? I’ve never heard that before. I thought Photios was comdemned as a schismatic, excommunicated, and separated from the Church??? :confused:
Click to expand...
What? They never taught you that St. Photios died in communion with Rome (while she was still Orthodox from our view)? They also never taught you that he is commemorated in most if not ALL of the Eastern Catholic churches under Rome? Where did you learn that he was still considered a “schismatic?”

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top