Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[AlNg]

You have a better chance seeing the Oriental Orthodox coming into communion honestly.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox also have a chance of restoring communion. That would present an interesting (i.e., non-transitive) situation if these (unlikely) things happened:
The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox restore communion.
The Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics restore communion.
The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics remain out of communion.

 

[ziapueblo]

That would be an interesting situation. I’ve always heard that the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox are closer to restoring communion than the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

Side question; does the Oriental Orthodox have a similar liturgical year as the Eastern Orthodox?

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m not sure if this is correct or not but I have heard that the only reason the West uses Catholic and the East used Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental was to identify each other and that this was sometime in the second millennium. Again, not sure if this is accurate or not but it does make sense.

ZP

 

[porthos11]

Iustinus1:

You have a better chance seeing the Oriental Orthodox coming into communion honestly.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox also have a chance of restoring communion. That would present an interesting (i.e., non-transitive) situation if these (unlikely) things happened:
The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox restore communion.
The Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics restore communion.
The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics remain out of communion.

If the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox reestablish communion, and the Catholics restore communion with the Oriental Orthodox, then we would be in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox, although indirectly.

Except for the Russians, of course.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I can not see full reunification. Rome has defined too much which angers the east…and the east just doesn’t like us very much, tbh.

Now, I could see a state in which both sides freely allow each other’s laity to receive Holy Communion in each other’s churches. It’s already sorta happening but I’m talking about a day in which an Orthodox divine liturgy fulfills your Sunday obligation as a Catholic. I could see that happening in my lifetime…both sides easing up some.

 

[Dovekin]

Is there a real chance of communion between Moscow and Constantinople?

There are different ideas of “full communion” that need to be addressed. Unity with Rome could fundamentally change the current ability of Orthodox Patriarchs to disagree with one another. In a case like Ukraine, will union with the Pope be more determinative than union with the Ecumenical Patriarch currently is? Would Rome find that acceptable?

 

[imo]

In Portuguese, my native language we have just one world for both even!

 

[imo]

Why except for the Russians? Could you explain it?

 

[dochawk]

. I speak especially of the Russians.

That is the biggest issue (and perhaps the only real barrier!)

Now, if the schism between the RO and GO extends to the RO from the rest of the EO, communion between C and the rest of the EO would probably be in short order . . .

I also agree that communion between the OO and C is far closer than between EO and C

We cannot “return to the Orthodox” because it is not we who separated ourselves from them , anyways.

Speaking strictly historically, that just isn’t true–the papal legate purported to excommunicate the GO patriarch, and it spread from there (not that things hadn’t been rough for a long time.). Married clergy, bearded clergy, leavened bread, and “deletion” of the Filioque–all ancient practices–were cited by Rome as “wrongs” by the east.

Well, the Catholic Church is more for a father than a sibling, since it has the primacy.

That’s quite a modern notion of primacy . . . historically, “older sister” would be far closer* . . .

but the Orthodox have regional authorities (eg, patriarch) that Catholics do not have.

???

That is exactly what metropolitans and patriarchs are! And it was only in the last couple of decades that “patriarch of the west” was dropped.

And then, only Catholics have a universal authority (pope).

Simply not true. There are eastern heads of churches in which the patriarch actually exercises more control than Rome does in the RCC.

Also, primacy of the pope will likely never be recognized by the Orthodox in a juridical manner.

Where are you getting this? I’d be hard pressed to come up with an eastern source denying Roman primacy. The dispute is to whether that means what it did before the schism, or what Rome has declared it to be post-schism.

If they could ever see the pope as having primacy, it seems this would only be in pastorship—pastoral primacy. I think that’s really all we could hope for—viewing the pope as the “servant of the servants of God.”

Hmm, like for the first thousand years?

Now that it is infallible the chances of that are null.

It wouldn’t even be difficult to reconcile the actual language of V I on infallibility (as opposed to the common misconception) with orthodoxy, given good faith on both sides. It is not a unilateral power of the pope, per V I, but rather a recognition of his role as president of the college of bishops.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox restore communion.

this seems to me to be the least likely combination . . .

I can not see full reunification.

Not even possible, as there never was “union” to restore. There was communion, which could e restored.

 

[dochawk]

Why except for the Russians? Could you explain it?

The ROC is a Russian nationalist organization. For centuries before the communists, it was effectively a department in the imperial government.

The ROC currently wants to be recognized in place of Constantinople as the head of Orthodoxy.

The current spat is because, long before the Kiev church (which the ROC claims to be) was founded, “portfolios” were established for the five patriarchies. Constantinople was placed in charge of “unknown” lands to be evangelized, which fits in with their sending SS C&M to the slavs.

In the subsequent centuries, the “royal” family in Kiev would flee to Muscovy, purporting to bring the see with them. Centuries later, the church remaining in Kiev re-established communion with Rome, and was eventually shunned by the other Orthodox (but this took a century or two).

Constantinople and Moscow both attempted to establish new churches in the Ukraine. Moscow claimed that it was still part of it’s territory, and would cooperate with the communists in holding the false synod with ROC bishops and complicit UCC priests (while all of the UCC bishops were detained) purporting to become part of Moscow’s jurisdiction.

In the squabbling between the two new orthodox churches, the UAOC (Ukrainian autonomous Orthodox Church) appears, trying to bridge the gap.

Now, Constantinople has granted a “toma” of autocephalous or autonomy to the combined UAOC and UOC-EP (just as it did for the ROC when the EP was stranded in Moscow without funds to return home!), and the MP has taken exception and broken communion.

And that’s the short version!

 

[AlNg]

this seems to me to be the least likely combination . .

Why? I thought that already the Armenian Orthodox allow communion to Eastern Orthodox and the local Antiochian Eastern Orthodox allows communion to a Coptic Orthodox parishioner.

 

[dochawk]

while there are specific churches that are exceptions, the RCC and the EO have, as a generalization, acknowledged that their schism was not over theology, but because they misunderstood what the other was saying (cue the first article of Brest again . . .).

None of the EO and the RCC have gotten that far (although the dialogues have gone this direction . . )

 

[AlNg]

The Antiochian Eastern Orthodox priest in this area allows OO to receive Holy Communion. He does not allow RC to do so. Perhaps this is not a general situation. I would not know about that.

 

[dochawk]

The AO are a particularly interesting group.

Unlike most EO/EC parings, the AO are an offshoot of the Melkites (Catholic), created by those who dissented from the (admittedly irregular) election of the Melkite patriarch. They were formed by the EP (in another irregular election) purporting to fill the same patriarchal see.

In any event, the Melkites and AO are possibly the least “in” on the schism, with regular meanderings of the faithful and clergy between the tow, and, as I understand it, building all new churches int heir territory for joint use.

I wish I’d had him forward it to me, but a Melkite priest showed me a picture of all five (!) patriarchies of Antioch posing together!

I suspect (and pray) that the AO and Melkites will lead the crumbling of the schism . . .

 

[Magnanimity]

I appreciate your enthusiasm here, but it seems that you have almost entirely misunderstood me. I’ll share some responsibility of that though—perhaps my post was done too hastily.

That is exactly what metropolitans and patriarchs are! And it was only in the last couple of decades that “patriarch of the west” was dropped.

Which was my point. How could it be missed? Did I not say, “the Orthodox have regional authorities (eg, patriarch).” Did Vatican I not make it clear for you that the pope considers himself to be, not merely a regional authority, but rather the supreme authority in the church? So then, the pope is not merely regional. And, as I said, the Catholic Church suffers from being so massive, yet without the equivalency of a patriarch (regional authority). For Catholics, there is the local bishop and then there’s the bishop of Rome who is the only one who has juridical authority over all Catholic bishops. Understand the point now?

Simply not true. There are eastern heads of churches in which the patriarch actually exercises more control than Rome does in the RCC.

This is equivocation over the term “universal.” My point could only be denied by you if you were to point out who, among the Orthodox, enjoys supreme Juridical authority over all the Orthodox. Who would that be? Patriarch of Constantinople has authority over Russia? In what sense is the Const patriarch’s authority “universal?” As in, in what sense is his authority for all Orthodox equivalent to the authority of the pope for all Catholics?

Where are you getting this?

My main source is Metroplitan Kallistos Ware. You find him to be controversial in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, do you?

I’d be hard pressed to come up with an eastern source denying Roman primacy.

Again, equivocation. I specified the type of primacy that I meant—juridical primacy—final authorial say in matters of church governance and discipline. So, you’re claiming that the Orthodox are ok with the pope enjoying that type of authority among all Orthodox and Catholics…? Not bloody likely.

Hmm, like for the first thousand years?

Yes, for the first millennium, which was again, the very point I was making.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here @dochawk, and assume you were rushed in your response. I consider all of my original points to be uncontroversially true. The only speculative bit is Metropolitan Ware’s 3-tier model of authority (universal, regional and local) and how that might fit into a future entire church in communion.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

It also seems to me that many Catholics believe that there are only two obstacles to re-union between the Catholic and Orthodox communions, viz. the papacy and the filioque .

I’d also add the Immaculate Conception.

True story: 15+ years ago I was invited to an Orthodox Baptism/Chrismation/Communion. After the services, I asked the deacon since we share practically the same Liturgy and profess that the Virgin is “all-holy, immaculate, all-blessed” (Divine Liturgy), why don’t the Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception? He couldn’t give me an answer.

 

[Isaac14]

@dochawk said this in another thread:
“Under Eastern theology, the stain of sin isn’t part of conception, so the IC isn’t necessary in that regard.

“That isn’t to say that Mary wasn’t particularly pure, just the the IC doesn’t really say anything.

“I don’t think you will find an Orthodox (or EC) that claims Mary was born with any taint of sn.”

Which I think is pretty fair, we Orthodox just don’t see the IC as necessary, even as we fully affirm the Theotokos was without sin.

 

[dochawk]

Did I not say, “the Orthodox have regional authorities (eg, patriarch).”

I managed to read a “not”
iontothat.

My point could only be denied by you if you were to point out who, among the Orthodox, enjoys supreme Juridical authority over all the Orthodox.

No. Only if one first makes the incorrect assumption that anything other than the final authority must haver that, and . .

Who would that be?

As of the first or second century, that was established to be the bishop of Rome . . . but in an appellate capacity, rather than of his own volition.

Patriarch of Constantinople has authority over Russia?

he did unto granting tomas of autocephalous and autonomy, yes.

In what sense is the Const patriarch’s authority “universal?” As in, in what sense is his authority for all Orthodox equivalent to the authority of the pope for all Catholics?

I don’t think anyone has suggested those.

My point could only be denied by you if you were to point out who, among the Orthodox, enjoys supreme Juridical authority over all the Orthodox.

the bishop of Rome, in an appellate capacity. This has been settled for close to two thousand years.

My main source is Metroplitan Kallistos Ware. You find him to be controversial in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, do you?

huh?

Again, equivocation. I specified the type of primacy that I meant—juridical primacy—final authorial say in matters of church governance and discipline.

In other words, you’re looking at this from an absolutely western and not eastern perspective, and with a version of “primacy” that wasn’t claimed until the nineteenth century . . .

There was not a tie before the schism in which Roman primacy was denied. That doesn’t mean that primacy is “whatever Rome thinks it means this week” . . .

 

[Magnanimity]

In what sense is the Const patriarch’s authority “universal?” As in, in what sense is his authority for all Orthodox equivalent to the authority of the pope for all Catholics?

That’s right, no one has. So, in the West one is working with a universal (over the whole church—all bishops) concept of authority, but no regional. And I suppose from an Eastern perspective, one merely has local and regional authorities (no universal). Is this how you see it?

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is “western,” as he is British. But he’s been Orthodox for a long time and was never Catholic. But perhaps since he lives and operates in the West, you see his approach to all of this as “western.” And if so, that’s ok. I know perfectly well that as an American Catholic, I’m most certainly “western” in my orientation. But I also see this as a deficiency in my own thinking. West needs East and vice-versa. I have plenty to learn, as we all do. Perhaps you were taking issue with points I was actually making though I’m not quite certain of that.

In other words, you’re looking at this from an absolutely western and not eastern perspective, and with a version of “primacy” that wasn’t claimed until the nineteenth century . . .

And yet it was claimed (and re-affirmed in Vatican 2). Not every belief of the church needs to be seen explicitly in the writings of Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp. Plenty of the church’s self-understanding develops and unfolds later. Even the concept of the “development of doctrine” itself was a late concept (JH Newman).

 

[TomH1]

What I meant was to inform the OP that in discussions between Catholic and Orthodox the Holy See represents the Catholic Church. Because there is nothing in Orthodoxy comparable to the pope any agreement with the Orthodox requires agreement from all their autocephalous churches. The fact we are in discussions with 16 churches rather than one makes it far more difficult to reach common ground.