Have Eastern Orthodox ever considered that if they would join us one of their Patriarchs could one day become the Pope?

[Monergistic]

This piece discusses the possibility of the non-Catholic becoming Pope (or, more precisely, a new Catholic becoming Pope).

Be forewarned that it gets a bit dry and philosophical.

Thank you for that! It was a little dry, but highly informative. I enjoyed it very much.

 

[Rawb]

I have to disagree with what you’re saying here Rawb. Since you guys have WRO (Western-Rite Orthodox), clearly you do have to idea of “Rites”.

No, you’re right about that. We do have different Rites as far as that goes.

What I mean though is the idea within your church, where, if I’m a Roman Catholic, my children inherit their Roman Rite-ness from me, and are canonically attached to the Roman Church (and I may not be using your terms correctly, and I know that’s a pet peeve of yours, just bear with me lol. Even as a Roman I never got the terms right I don’t think). Anyway, even if my children started going to a Melkite parish, they are canonically Roman and have to follow the Roman laws of fasting and Holy Days of Obligation. Vice versa too: your Melkite Children have to fast on Wednesday and Friday in accordance with Melkite practice (assuming Melkites practice like the OC, and I think you do) because they are not Roman Rite Catholic even if they attend a Roman Catholic parish. You have to formally change from Eastern Catholic to Western Catholic in that situation (well you don’t have to, but to be able to practice Roman Catholicism you would).

In Orthodoxy we don’t have that attachment or enrollment. My wife was Chrismated Western Rite actually, but when she moved she just started going to a Greek, Eastern parish. She didn’t have to write to bishops or do anything other than introduce herself to her new priest, and just started practicing Eastern Orthodoxy (instead of Western). Being Chrismated Western Orthodox didn’t mandate that she remain Western Orthodox. My friend moved from a Serbian to Greek parish, and didn’t have to write to a bishop. My Godbrother went from OCA to Antiochian back to OCA due to a series of moves. Different expressions, no need to formally change anything.

Parishes and diocese and clergy are “Russian” Orthodox or “Serbian” Orthodox or “Greek” Orthodox. They are ecclesiastically attached to a synod. Individuals are not. They are just Orthodox and practice however their priest and parish practice (the origin of the phrase “When in Rome” is this way of practicing Christianity). That’s what I meant.

 

[Peter_J]

To some extent I agree with what you’re saying, Rawb; but I would point out nevertheless that you are – at least in part – talking about the fact that, within Catholicism, Eastern churches only uses Eastern rites, and Western churches only use Western rites. Which means, in particular, that for someone to switch from being an (if you will) “Eastern-Rite Catholic” to a “Western-Rite Catholic” entails switching churches.

 

[katherine2001]

Well, it really depends.

Most Orthodox I’ve talked to would love to see an increase in the Western Rite, and a re-establishment of Western Orthodoxy throughout Europe. They would love to see the Western Patriarch re-established. This fantasy future doesn’t, however, usually involve reunion with Rome. Most I’ve talked to don’t take reunion as a serious possibility. They would support, however, in this (rather bizarre) scenario, the new Roman Pope adopting Western Orthodox practices (but I rather doubt that’d be the Novus Ordo. No Orthodox I’ve yet accept the Novus Ordo as an acceptable Orthodox Liturgy).

Yet there are also those who don’t accept Western Orthodoxy and would encourage this new Western Patriarch to adopt the “tried and true” Eastern practices. The Greeks are rather well known for this position, and are the friendliest with Rome and, of course, His All Holiness is the most likely to be this new Eastern Western Patriarch. So there’s a wrench there.

Really I could go on and on. There’s a million different ways this scenario could be played out, and I’ve only touched on the Ortho-centric ones.

No Orthodox I know and talk to are really interested in Western-Rite Orthodoxy. We like our Eastern liturgies too much. I know that I wouldn’t be interested in Western Rite.

 

[Rawb]

No Orthodox I know and talk to are really interested in Western-Rite Orthodoxy. We like our Eastern liturgies too much. I know that I wouldn’t be interested in Western Rite.

And Orthodox I know and talk to are really interested in Western Rite Orthodoxy. Some of them like their Western Liturgies, some like their Eastern, and I know of some Eastern who would prefer to be at a Western but can’t. I know that I enjoy Western Rites now and then.

 

[Nita]

…Parishes and diocese and clergy are “Russian” Orthodox or “Serbian” Orthodox or “Greek” Orthodox. They are ecclesiastically attached to a synod. Individuals are not. They are just Orthodox and practice however their priest and parish practice (the origin of the phrase “When in Rome” is this way of practicing Christianity). That’s what I meant.

Could a visiting Russian Orthodox priest go to a Greek Orthodox church and celebrate the Greek Orthodox liturgy/Mass?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Could a visiting Russian Orthodox priest go to a Greek Orthodox church and celebrate the Greek Orthodox liturgy/Mass?

Yes, with the permission of his bishop and of the bishop whose diocese he is visiting. This is actually the case, even if the two bishops involved are within the same synod (e.g., if both are Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, etc.) Priests are not free to perform the liturgy except where their bishop allows them to do so (which is why a visiting priest requires the permission of his bishop), and likewise a priest should not perform the liturgy at a parish within a given area without the consent of the bishop of that diocese (which is why a visiting priest needs the consent of the bishop with jurisdiction over the parish being visited).

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible. There are occasional pan-Orthodox concelebrations (not “concelebrations” in a liturgical sense…more like showcases of bits of the different church’s prayers and chants, since EO and OO cannot actually concelebrate liturgically yet), so how much more should be possible within one communion? I would think that as long as the priest knew the necessary parts (which would probably be much easier for EO given their liturgical uniformity, at least relative to the OO), there would be no problems.

In fact I seem to remember at the OCA parish back home (not a perfect example, but it’s what I know), there was a mix of Slavic (Znamenny) and Greek chant employed, depending. Not quite the same, of course, as everything was in English, but it’s wrong to think that if you’re X Orthodox you can’t worship at Y Orthodox Church, so long as they’re within your communion. We have Ethiopians who worship with us here in Albuquerque, because we’re the only game in town when it comes to the OO communion. The name on the door is generally just shorthand for “most of our congregation comes from/originally came from a particular place, probably fairly recently” or “we are under such-and-such canonical Orthodox bishop/within such-and-such diocese” (in fact, our Church has both on its sign: “St. Pishoy Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States Diocese”, so that anybody who cares can look us up and see that we’re not some schismatics pretending to be Orthodox). It most definitely does not mean “this church is for people of X ethnicity/cultural background only”. That’s phyletism, a recognized and condemned heresy within the EO communion. (As far as I know, we OO never had such a need to condemn it, since it finally came to a head after the Bulgarians in Constantinople tried to set up their own bishop for their own people. In our history, the Copts had Syrian bishops/Popes, the Ethiopians had Syrian and Coptic bishops, the Indians had Syrian bishops, etc., so it would’ve been kind of hard to insist on phyletism. I dunno…iIt’s wacky.)