The problem here is that the Vatican rejects the Zoghby initiaive.I like the Melkite perspective (Zoghby Initiative):
- I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
- I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
On December 7, 1965 the Catholic Pope & Greek Orthodox Patriarch mutually lifted the 1054 mutual Excommunications of the two Churches.The main issue is the role of the Pope, and when the two sides disagreed they mutually excommunicated the other
I agreeI think what seems very different on the surface is actually much more similar than either is willing to admit. I’m Orthodox but all I think that separates us is how to understand the role of the Pope.
Indeed, and certainly not of a nature as to justify our separation once we resolve the question of Papal authority.I think any difference doctrine is probably very minor.
I think in practical terms they are not so. You only have to look at the fall out from the Ecumenical Patriarch giving the Ukraine an autocephalous church.We are, in fact, one church. We have one faith and are in communion. The various jurisdictions serve to meet local needs in unique ways.
I am not going to rehearse them all here now partly because of the time it would take me. If you search for something like ‘Differences between Orthodox and Catholic’ in an Internet search engine you will come up with a lot of hits. Many of these come from Orthodox sources where I have got these differences from. They are not just the issue of the papacy, or the filioque, but the ecclesiology of the church as you have mentioned, different understandings of original sin (so from an Orthodox perspective Mary’s Immaculate Conception is unnecessary), and there are a lot more theological differences. I recommend you research them because it is very interesting.What are these differences you’ve found?
It does not seem like a great idea. Imagine Anglicans comming to Orthodox Church (there was a debate in Orthodoxy concerning Anglican Orders and some Patriarchates accepted them as valid, some as not) and saying that they believe Orthodox Church to be “part” of True Church of Christ (not full Church neither holding continuity with Original Church solely) and therefore would commune at your Church, be in parish council and perhaps even pursue priesthood while not believing in everything Church holds as dogma. It’s nice thing to say for a layman who is not educated enough, but in the end there is a lot theological and practical that needs to be addressed before one gets accepted to Church just because he accepts part of dogma- for example Papal Primacy in context of primacy of honor is something that is solely defined as being mistaken in Catholic dogma- therefore Zoghby initiative stinks of indifferentism to me.The problem here is that the Vatican rejects the Zoghby initiaive.
Yes, it does seem like a great idea, but the Roman Catholic Church does not accept it.
Yeah but outcome seems like getting attention, with nothing else really happening, and it clearly is not working as intended either.It’s not a matter of “just” getting attention, like a kid screaming, “look at me! Look at me!” It’s a very serious issue when communion is broken and due attention needs to be paid by all.
Yeah, still Eucharistic communion seems like very serious thing to me, especially when both sides start to set up rival Churches over the globe in each other’s territory, acting like other’s jurisdiction is invalid. It’s like one Church stops recognizing (jurisdictional) authority of other Church completely, as was case when ROC set up Churches in EP jurisdiction and vice-versa. It’s practically like pretending other Churches clergy is not there, while recognizing that laity have no part in mistake of hierarchy. It’s a nice thing laity is usually not concerned much, but that’s kinda it.We Orthodox don’t expect things to be solved instantly.
Is the second point not arbitrary? Why not the first 100 years, or 500 years, or 1300 years? The fact that the final schism occurred after 1000 years does not mean any given definition of primacy of the Bishop of Rome was accepted universally before that time. Indeed, that was just the boiling point. And why would primacy not evolve to meet the Church’s needs?. I like the Melkite perspective (Zoghby Initiative):
- I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
- I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
The situation in Ukraine is messy and embarrassing to be sure. But are you saying that Orthodoxy’s self understanding as being one church is wrong? We are one church in multiple jurisdictions.I think in practical terms they are not so. You only have to look at the fall out from the Ecumenical Patriarch giving the Ukraine an autocephalous church.
I’m well aware of what Orthodox & Catholics on the internet like to focus on in terms of separation. You said every time you read up on the topic you find yet another issue that separates our churches. I am curious what you think is driving separation.I am not going to rehearse them all here now partly because of the time it would take me. If you search for something like ‘Differences between Orthodox and Catholic’
While I agree practical jurisdiction surely did evolve, Popes never seemed limited by any Canon Law or such things in exercising their Petrine Ministry (which was distinguished from their normal jurisdiction as Patriarch of West). Pope Saint Gregory does already express ideas about Papal Infallibility (implicit) and Papal Universal Jurisdiction (explicit). Pre-Schism ecclesiology where primate actually possesses power over other Bishops is much closer to Catholic ecclesiology (or Oriental Orthodox for that matter) than Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Funnily enough, Eastern Catholics I meet in our country are much more fervent about defending Papacy than Latin ones, and also much more knowledgeable about implications of Vatican I and certain dogmas of faith, as well as more willing to submit to Pope. It’s kinda interesting.And why would primacy not evolve to meet the Church’s needs?
Yeah, antiquarianism (hope it’s spelled like that) is condemned by Church anyway- trying to return to Apostolic Age simply won’t work anymore- we don’t go around naked either, and Adam and Eve did practice that in Paradise. Certain German ex-cardinal said that Catholic Church should not require of East anything more than was lived and defined in first millennium though- but I don’t think we should require any less of East either.Is the second point not arbitrary? Why not the first 100 years, or 500 years, or 1300 years?
I’m sorry the Orthodox approach seems to you that our churches are little children screaming for attention. Frankly this is insulting.Yeah but outcome seems like getting attention,
On what basis do you say it’s “not working?” Did you not read where I said this takes time? Did you not read where I said Orthodox work through things slowly? On what timeframe should we work? Just today it is reported the primates of the churches of Cypress, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are meeting together to discuss the situation in Ukraine. This is particularly noteworthy given the strained relationship between Antioch & Jerusalem.and it clearly is not working as intended either.
Did I say it wasn’t a serious matter? Of course it is and that is exactly what I stated. I haven’t and I am not going to deny that there are a lot of messy jurisdictional situations around the world. It is indeed a problem, but you also casually dismiss the relative peace amongst the laity in that regardless of jurisdictional squabbling we receive the Eucharist and participate fully in the life of the Church.Yeah, still Eucharistic communion seems like very serious thing to me,
Are you saying the agreed statements produced by these commissions are “disregarding what was revealed to each side?” that they are not “comforting the truth?”but disregarding what was revealed to each side just to please other one would not be right. I’m just saying, let’s be a bit careful about comforting people while not comforting truth.
Correct. But this is the way it is with some Latin Roman Catholics.I’m sorry the Orthodox approach seems to you that our churches are little children screaming for attention. Frankly this is insulting.
Although i agree with you, there are Roman Catholics who say that the Zoghby initiative stinks and further, it was rejected by the Vatican.I know plenty of Eastern Catholics that are not keen on universal jurisdiction. I like the Melkite perspective (Zoghby Initiative):
- I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
- I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
…Zoghby initiative stinks of indifferentism to me.
I never said your Churches are little children,Temporarily breaking communion, as has been done in these cases, is meant to get the other parties (and other Orthodox churches’) attentionI used your words, if that’s insulting I’m sorry, but I never thought I couldn’t repeat same thing you said.I’m sorry the Orthodox approach seems to you that our churches are little children screaming for attention. Frankly this is insulting.
Because each Church started setting up rival parishes in each other’s territory- it simply looks like they don’t consider jurisdiction of other party to be valid. I don’t think that’s working as getting attention to issue at hand, it’s more about provoking other Church in ROC vs EP scenario.On what basis do you say it’s “not working?”
I said it’s a good thing, and I respect that to be honest, but in the end that does not mean clergy can fight all they want if they leave civilians out of that. Perhaps your issues take time to get cleaned up, I guess I’m not used to such things because in Catholicism central authority (be it Pope, Patriarch or Archbishop) would either get involved and solve it, or it would become real schism- I guess SSPX problem is most similar to one in your Churches, but they did not set up rival jurisdiction to not be in Schism etc…you also casually dismiss the relative peace amongst the laity
I’m sorry if I sound offensive, while I don’t approve of anything that’s happening around those grounds in either of those incidents, I am more interested in how exactly is the approach of each Church working.
Partly, yes. I believe they are either to be understood in both senses which does not help, or are a bit more liberal in wording. In the end, that does not matter. I am a layman, subject to my Bishop, Archbishop, Pope. I sincerely hope I’d conform as St. Ignatius of Loyola said, “I need to be ready to understand that what I perceive as green is red if hierarchical Church defines it so”. Note he said “what I perceive” not “what is”, so perhaps what I perceive to be true is not true, but obedience stays. My opinion on statements of commissions does not matter, they are not binding in any sense and I could reject them with no outcome that would hinder my communion with Church- unlike the scenario where I rejected any Catholic Ecumenical Council, be it Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II or Florence.Are you saying the agreed statements produced by these commissions are “disregarding what was revealed to each side?” that they are not “comforting the truth?”
was a figure of speech… stinks of indifferentism, hence I’m not saying it smells, I’m saying it kinda feels like it supports indifferentism.Zoghby initiative stinks and further, it was rejected by the Vatican.
Perhaps it can be formulated in better way, it’s good news Patriarch John is going to try that.It was rejected but from what I have heard, Patriarch John has said he wishes to look into it again.