Full Communion with Orthodox Churches - would it require recognition of the pope?

[carefullytread]

I was recently reading this Vatican radio address. Amongst other things, the Pope says

I believe that it is important to reaffirm respect for this principle as an essential condition, accepted by both, for the restoration of full communion, which does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation. Rather, it means welcoming all the gifts that God has given to each, thus demonstrating to the entire world the great mystery of salvation accomplished by Christ the Lord through the Holy Spirit. I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.

Does this mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches could be in full communion without the Orthodox Churches accepting the authority of the Pope? Could they be in full communion and still have differing doctrine, e.g. maintain their teachings on divorce?

 

[Upgrade25]

I was recently reading this Vatican radio address. Amongst other things, the Pope says

Does this mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches could be in full communion without the Orthodox Churches accepting the authority of the Pope? Could they be in full communion and still have differing doctrine, e.g. maintain their teachings on divorce?

If you read on, the Holy Father gently asserts his authority. How could we forfeit the keys?

 

[dmar198]

I was recently reading this Vatican radio address. Amongst other things, the Pope says

Does this mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches could be in full communion without the Orthodox Churches accepting the authority of the Pope? Could they be in full communion and still have differing doctrine, e.g. maintain their teachings on divorce?

If we had different doctrine, it wouldn’t be the same profession of faith. Professing the same faith includes professing the same doctrine, including the doctrine of papal supremacy.

 

[Wesrock]

If we had different doctrine, it wouldn’t be the same profession of faith. Professing the same faith includes professing the same doctrine, including the doctrine of papal supremacy.

Yes, and I agree, though Eastern Chuches are afforded levels of autonomy appropriate for their jurisdiction and history, which is what I tbink is being implied.

 

[carefullytread]

If we had different doctrine, it wouldn’t be the same profession of faith. Professing the same faith includes professing the same doctrine, including the doctrine of papal supremacy.

Then in what sense does the Pope mean communion does not “signify submission”? Isn’t accepting papal supremacy submission to the pope?

I can understand why he would say that communion doesn’t mean assimilation. The Church has proven with its (recent) treatment of the Eastern Catholic churches that She will allow the continuation of the eastern rites and traditions. But the patriarchs of those churches still submit to the Pope.

And not that I would expect differently. As Upgrade25 says, I can’t imagine a Pope accepting “union” with the Orthodox if the Orthodox didn’t accept the doctrine about the role of the Bishop of Rome. Which is why I asked the question - I was wondering if he meant something else by “full communion”.

For example, the Catholic Church already does allow Orthodox to take communion, meaning the Eucharist. Maybe what he meant was that there could be a full opening of the Eucharist between members of the churches rather than a “union” of the churches?

Because I don’t see how the Pope could say union of the churches doesn’t require the Orthodox submitting to the Pope. Unless he’s just equivocating on the meaning of the word “submission”, but I was hoping it was something more interesting than that.

 

[StJoseph8]

We’ll see. I mean, the Pope and the Patriarch of Russia met very recently and there seems to be a continual warming relations with both. I think it would certainly require acceptance of Papal Authority. By submission, he probably meant that the Latin rite would not try to dominate the Orthodoxy liturgy.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I was recently reading this Vatican radio address. Amongst other things, the Pope says

Does this mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches could be in full communion without the Orthodox Churches accepting the authority of the Pope? Could they be in full communion and still have differing doctrine, e.g. maintain their teachings on divorce?

I just finished reading the radio address. What I understood the Pope to say is that there would be unity but that each branch of the Church would have its own authority. And yes, that would include different doctrine.

‘…it is of the greatest importance to preserve and support the rich patrimony of the Eastern Churches. This regards not only their liturgical and spiritual traditions, but also their canonical disciplines, sanctioned as they are by the Fathers and by Councils, which regulate the lives of these Churches (cf. 15-16).’

So, it is not as if there will be a great migration to western Roman Catholicism and all Orthodox will now look to Rome and the Pope. Or the other way round - that the Pope would give his authority to one of the Patriarchs.

‘…for the restoration of full communion, which does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.’

This Pope wants ‘Communion’ and not submission from either side. It makes perfect sense to me. And it could be very possible.

 

[carefullytread]

This Pope wants ‘Communion’ and not submission from either side. It makes perfect sense to me. And it could be very possible.

I’m wondering now what communion means in this address. Would it be communion in the way the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with Rome or more like the way Anglicans and Old Catholics are in communion. In the latter case, the institutions are fully separate and they make doctrinal decisions separately, but recognize each other as fully embodying the Christian faith and allow each other’s members to share in the sacraments.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I’m wondering now what communion means in this address. Would it be communion in the way the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with Rome or more like the way Anglicans and Old Catholics are in communion. In the latter case, the institutions are fully separate and they make doctrinal decisions separately, but recognize each other as fully embodying the Christian faith and allow each other’s members to share in the sacraments.

I’m sure that people in all the churches are sorting through possibilities. Perhaps a better example than the Anglicans and Old Catholics that you suggest would be the Episcopal Church in the US and the Lutheran Church (ELCA). We share clergy, seminary training in some instances, parishes, Sacraments, but not Bishops. So each authority structure is kept in place but there is communion that freely flows between the two churches. Decision-making and doctrine is also unique to each church.

Just a thought.

 

[carefullytread]

I’m sure that people in all the churches are sorting through possibilities. Perhaps a better example than the Anglicans and Old Catholics that you suggest would be the Episcopal Church in the US and the Lutheran Church (ELCA). We share clergy, seminary training in some instances, parishes, Sacraments, but not Bishops. So each authority structure is kept in place but there is communion that freely flows between the two churches. Decision-making and doctrine is also unique to each church.

Just a thought.

I didn’t know that about the TEC and ELCA; that’s interesting. Yes, I have to wonder if this what the Pope had in mind, as I don’t think you can the Eastern Catholic model of communion with Rome doesn’t imply submission without equivocating on the meaning of submission. Not that there’s anything bad per se with submission, but it seemed to me that the Pope was trying to stress that there was a way forward to communion without submission.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

How union (if it were to happen that the Orthodox recognised the Pope as correct) can not involve 'submission"? submission to the Pope and his authority seems an essential element to communion from a Roman Catholic viewpoint.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

How union (if it were to happen that the Orthodox recognised the Pope as correct) can not involve 'submission"? submission to the Pope and his authority seems an essential element to communion from a Roman Catholic viewpoint.

The Pope seems to be thinking in other terms, according to the cited broadcast. And if the Pope is the one to ultimately define ‘the Roman Catholic viewpoint’, then communion will be somewhat different in meaning than submission to Rome.

 

[GEddie]

The Pope seems to be thinking in other terms, according to the cited broadcast. And if the Pope is the one to ultimately define ‘the Roman Catholic viewpoint’, then communion will be somewhat different in meaning than submission to Rome.

I doubt very much that reunion would occur in the current Papacy. At the very minimum, a new Church council would be called. Jerusalem II, anybody?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tomdstone]

Could they be in full communion and still have differing doctrine, e.g. maintain their teachings on divorce?

I am not sure that there is an essential difference in the teaching on divorce between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. For example, Roman Catholic tribunals require a couple to get divorced before they will consider the case for annulment. The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same understanding of validity as so the Roman Catholics.

 

[Tomdstone]

I doubt very much that reunion would occur in the current Papacy.

Neither side seems willing to budge from their positions.

 

[Rohzek]

I am not sure that there is an essential difference in the teaching on divorce between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. For example, Roman Catholic tribunals require a couple to get divorced before they will consider the case for annulment. The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same understanding of validity as so the Roman Catholics.

What exactly do you mean by this? Could you go into more detail? I ask because I think the opposite.

 

[Tomdstone]

What exactly do you mean by this? Could you go into more detail? I ask because I think the opposite.

I don’t see too much difference operationally between the two churches on divorce and remarriage. In both cases, the couple goes through a ceremony which is called a marriage ceremony. After a while, the couple wants to separate and so they apply to the appropriate church office to validate the breakup. In both churches there are requirements set by the church that must be met for the separation to be approved. Once the separation is approved by the appropriate church authorities, each partner is free to go through another marriage ceremony and have that marriage approved by their church.

 

[Rohzek]

I don’t see too much difference operationally between the two churches on divorce and remarriage. In both cases, the couple goes through a ceremony which is called a marriage ceremony. After a while, the couple wants to separate and so they apply to the appropriate church office to validate the breakup. In both churches there are requirements set by the church that must be met for the separation to be approved. Once the separation is approved by the appropriate church authorities, each partner is free to go through another marriage ceremony and have that marriage approved by their church.

Except the Catholic Church requires that the first marriage be somehow invalidated or annulled to allow for a second marriage. The Orthodox Church does not require this “high” standard. Instead, we simply recognize that a marriage occurred, then failed, and then allow for another marriage except in extraordinary circumstances. While we do annulments as well, we do those very rarely. Instead the process of an ecclesiastical divorce is usually pursued. Last, but not least, the Orthodox Church does not uphold the absolute indissolubility of marriage. Rather we hold that such is the ideal, but that the bond can be broken through sin.

 

[GEddie]

Except the Catholic Church requires that the first marriage be somehow invalidated or annulled to allow for a second marriage. The Orthodox Church does not require this “high” standard. Instead, we simply recognize that a marriage occurred, then failed, and then allow for another marriage except in extraordinary circumstances. While we do annulments as well, we do those very rarely. Instead the process of an ecclesiastical divorce is usually pursued. Last, but not least, the Orthodox Church does not uphold the absolute indissolubility of marriage. Rather we hold that such is the ideal, but that the bond can be broken through sin.

And that alone would, sadly, preclude a reunion, ISTM.

ICXC NIKA

 

[prodromos]

And that alone would, sadly, preclude a reunion, ISTM.

ICXC NIKA

It wasn’t an issue prior to the schism. Why would it be now?