I was talking of the Ruthenians who split to form ACROD.
What was the practice pre-union?
You seem to be saying that Eastern praxis is not proper?
The entire relic of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco abides there on the right as you enter the Holy Virgin Cathedral on Geary Street… You can leave a note on a piece of paper under the coffin with your request to him… Or you can simply ask him there in veneration and prayer… He is very active… His shoes are replaced each year worn out - Nobody knows why… We regard his relics as the holiest place in North America… Another will be Elder Ephraim in Arizona… I am sorry you were prevented from going there… It is worth a separate trip…
That practice will vary from parish to parish in the Antiochian Church - The more traditional among them will normally do the full Service if their Priest has strength… Metropolitan Joseph would like to see it done more than it is, I should think… Russians, of course, do the “full meal deal” irreligious of their physical condition… But “Orthodox Lite” is available to most here in the US…
Which permits sin.
I have changed my opinion a lot, as well as learning a lot about Orthodox ecclesiology and it’s principles… I don’t necessarily agree with it as of now, but it does make more sense to me than it used to. I also changed my point of view about centralization of Vatican, about Pope Gregory’s model of jurisdiction (as I have found statements about all Bishops being equal if no one has fault). I still remain dedicated to Papal Primacy (as to finish above bracket statement, if one has fault then let him be judged by Apostolic See is what Pope Gregory says) and it’s more-than-nominal power in terms of Church governance. But I will say that I learned more about collegiality and how it works, how it is supposed to work etc. Same way, I learned a lot about powers and responsibilities of individual Bishops.
I think that both can be done. Virtually, goal of discussion is gaining knowledge, but very huge and important side effect is what you have described. As long as mutual respect is maintained, everything works out.
Absolutely, though it does not “will” it in direct sense.
I hope to see that day. The problem is that the Orthodox need to be humble enough to realize that the successor of Peter has authority over all of the flock. After all, Jesus specifically changed Simon the fisherman’s name to Peter, then built the Church upon Peter, and gave him the keys, and three times commanded Peter to tend and feed the entire flock, not just part of it.
Sigh.
I won’t deny that some Orthodox hold some pretty unfortunate and mean views towards Catholics, though we certainly don’t have a monopoly. I myself have been told that as I am guilty of the mortal sin of schism for being Orthodox I am condemned to hell.
From numerous comments above and my opinion as well: The biggest hurdle will be the definition of the capacity of authority of the Pope. Many Catholics view his authority as nearly all-encompassing never to be questioned with all his comments to be taken as authoritative, to on the other end of the spectrum similar to the concept of many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as one of a position of Honor (perhaps similar to monsignor among priests) as " first among equals". I would say that is the central concept that has to be agreed upon. Most of the other issues are probably secondary. I say that only as a personal opinion acknowledging that many others would disagree.
Exactly. I have struggled with this a lot. There are are those on both sides who will not concede an inch. I can also see this viewpoint if we are looking at a person Who is staying true to what they believe is the “truth”. It is hard to fault a person for this. All of us just want the “truth”. I say this in no ways to be disrespectful, but we must define this issue. I think all other issues are secondary to such a union. Some Catholics in their attempt to be loyal to the Pope seem to extend all his comments as virtually impeccable whether they be in regard to faith and morals or not or if it is not a declarative statement. On the other side some Orthodox seem to look for no effort to join with the Catholics on common ground and see no value in Union.
You haven’t heard the condemnation from Church authority.
What, exactly, does that authority entail? Could the Pope unilaterally impose a new Liturgy upon the East?
Unity of the churches. We have examples of eastern rites that are in full communion with Rome. They retain their liturgical traditions yet in full communion with r’the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
That hasn’t always been the case. In the last 100 years those traditions have been so thoroughly trampled in the US as to cause two major schisms resulting in two Orthodox jurisdictions coming into existence in the US - OCA & ACROD. It was only within the last decade that married men were allowed as Eastern clergy in the US in Eastern Catholic Churches.
I agree that neither side has to give up anything. Actually, Orthodox position is not even dogmatical nor binding afaik. All that defines Orthodox ecclesiology are pre-schism canons afaik, and those are also ones Catholic Church recognizes as binding (perhaps with sole exception of Chalcedon’s canon about Constantinople’s 2nd place of honor and right to judge cases of the Church, but nowadays that one is not rejected by West as it used to be before). I would also throw in Oriental Orthodox into this dialogue and solve this with them, as again, their canons correspond yours with that sole exception listed above. +
It asserts that Rome never exercised “direct” jurisdiction over the East. Problem is with word “immediate” not “universal” in phrase “immediate and universal jurisdiction”.