Oriental Orthodox and the Pope

[mardukm]

Based on the common acknowledgement of the doctrinal importance of Petrine primacy, all the Churches of the Syriac Traditions (Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, ACOE, Syriac Catholic, Maronites, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Chaldeans) and the Latin Catholic Church actually have their own informal colloquies. It is under the aegis of the Pro Oriente Foundation and has met (IIRC) at least 6 times since the mid-1990’s. IIRC some of the Slavic Churches have observer status in the meetings.

Blessings

If you consider discussing it with a group of Syriac Orthodox bishops, than yes, it is a baseless. As I said, the Syriac Churches do not fervently condemn Rome of anything unlike the EO. While communion would be nice, however, they’re not going to make themselves subject to tyranny and overreaching authority. The only OO Church that would take issue with communion with Rome barring the last matter is the Copts.

As a Syriac, quite frankly, I have never understood the obsession with Greeks and Latins to be at each other’s throats. Perhaps this feeling of apathy is a recent one amongst Syriacs but it’s pretty indicative by seeing how many Maronite/Syriac Catholic-Syriac Orthodox marriages there are in the Middle East. I don’t know if it’s simply a historical narrative, but it’s sad that several of the Syriac Fathers particularly did not write regarding petty matters of semantics because they felt it drew attention from the true purpose of Apostolic Christianity (i.e. prayer, amongst other things).

 

[josie_L]

In other words, the Orientals should have been concerned about papal claims (the fact that the main issue was Christology doesn’t change this fact), but they weren’t. Why not? The Church is defined by its relationship to Peter. Breaking with Peter should cause any man to hesitate.

Why should they be concerned with papal claims or breaking communion with Rome, when they thought WE were teaching HERESY (obviously this took precedence over staying in communion with Rome or within the Church, i.e., they believed Rome and the rest of the Church had fallen into heresy)?

P.S. How many times do we see heretics appealing to Rome only to realize that Rome disagreed with them, i.e., what other choice did heretics have but to leave, i.e., that’s how strongly they believed in their heresies!

Honestly, Jimmy!

 

[dzheremi]

Yep, as I said, my impression of the OO perspective is that the Bishop of Rome isn’t held in as great importance as he is even within the EO.

I would say that’s accurate. Why bother with another’s Pope when you have one of your own? Ditto the distinctive Roman ecclesiology that has developed over the centuries, mostly since we were out of communion with both Rome and Constantinople. It is a blessing to world Christianity that the recent contact between the Popes of Alexandria and Rome has been so cordial, though I do sometimes wonder if we aren’t maybe sending the wrong message, since the two churches look at things from such different perspectives, so Roman Catholics tend to read a lot more into the various agreed statements, visits, etc. of recent years than any Coptic people I’ve ever met do (including bishops).

I don’t think there is any Christian on these forums who would oppose a resumption of Communion between churches on their own terms.

Hahaha. Yes, that was a bit of a throw-away line, but I’m trying to make sure that nothing I post in this thread can be read in a polemical fashion.

 

[dzheremi]

P.S. How many times do we see heretics appealing to Rome only to realize that Rome disagreed with them, i.e., what other choice did heretics have but to leave, i.e., that’s how strongly they believed in their heresies!

Pardon?

Does this have something to do with the OO, or is it a general comment about some other groups?

 

[josie_L]

Pardon?

Does this have something to do with the OO, or is it a general comment about some other groups?

No, Dzheremi, I was not thinking of the OO when I wrote that, i.e., I was referring to other groups. :hug1:

 

[Peter_J]

I will say that communion with the Latins would make the OO that I know happy (me too), but that would have to be on our terms (so, yes, it has not happened, and is unlikely to happen).

It would make you happy, eh? Would you think me impolite if I were to say “Duh”?

(Just asking. :tiphat

Hahaha. Yes, that was a bit of a throw-away line, but I’m trying to make sure that nothing I post in this thread can be read in a polemical fashion.

In all seriousness, I have actually had the experience of someone making that statement and then someone else (usually from a different church or denomination) expressing total surprise …

 

[MorEphrem]

When I said the OO hold the Bishop Of Rome in even lower regard than the EO, I meant that they hold him to be a less important personage. That has been the impression that I’ve got over time talking to actual OO - of course the pope is everything to OC. Your example of OO priests certainly follows this. They’ll happily commune with Rome if Rome keeps quiet - not quite the position of someone who thinks the Pope is a big deal.

I understood you quite well, and I didn’t say the OO want Rome to keep quiet - they should just not overreach. Perhaps my experience is skewed, but comparative to what I’ve heard Orthodox say, that is certainly not “less.” And this is not like an exclusively OO understanding of Petrine primacy either - I hear it from Melkites all the time, and that happen to be Byzantine Catholics.

In the same way Peter didn’t unilaterally bark orders at his contemporaries, why should one of several of his successors based solely on his name? I’m sure even Latins would agree with that. Apart from making vague statements about not overreaching, I didn’t express any specific ecclesiology that the Orient reduces the personage of the Pope to less than the EO.