Places where Catholics and Orthodox share Communion

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Council of Florence, dealing with the Armenians states

I don’t believe the Armenian Orthodox are currently in communion with the Byzantine Orthodox since they are considered “non-Chalcedonian.” Nor were they in communion with them at the time of Florence. Not having been to an Armenian Catholic Church, I cannot comment on whether or not they use the filioque in the Creed. Byzantine Catholics (Melkites, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Ruthenians, Italo-Byzantines, etc.) do not use the filioque. To my knowledge the Melkites never did, nor did the Russians. The Ukrainians and Ruthenians did for awhile, but have removed it from the Creed in the wake of Vatican II, per the Vatican’s instructions.

Other than the filioque issue, which has been more-or-less resolved, I see nothing in what you quoted that contradicts the Orthodox Faith.

Also it should be pointed out that these quotes are directed at the Armenians. What applies to one Eastern or Oriental Church does not necessarily apply to all as all have their own unique expression of the Faith. As our brother, Marduk, would quickly point out, Coptic theology is in many ways more similar to Latin/Roman theology than it is to Byzantine theology. The Melkite and Maronite Churches have their own unique approach based off of their Middle-Eastern and Syriac cultures. Likewise, the so-called “Thomas Christians” of India have their own approach to the Faith that is unique to Indian culture. Even within the Churches of the Byzantine tradition the Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Ruthenians) often have a different expression of their tradition than do the “Greeks” (i.e. Greeks, Melkites, Romanians, Italo-Byzantines, etc.). In short, what I’m saying is that the passages you quoted can be considered to apply only to the Armenians who, at that time, were seeking communion with Rome. At the Union of Brest, when the Ukrainians (Byzantine) sought communion with Rome, they were not required to deny anything that they had believed as Orthodox Christians, nor were they required to affirm anything other than Papal primacy, something that was already believe anyhow based off of the Canons of the Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I. When the Melkites re-established communion in 1724, they weren’t required to make any sort of offcial statement or declaration, they simply declared their (comm)union with Rome. Since that time they have been some of the most avid defenders of the Byzantine tradition within the Catholic Church, culminating especially in the declaration of the Melkite Synod of Bishops in 1994:

“I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.”
“I am in communion with the bishop of Rome as first among equals, according to the limits recognized in the First Millennium before the separation.”

Although Rome did speak out against Archbishop Elias Zoghby’s initiative of dual communion, it never spoke out against his above “Confession of Faith” that was subsequently adopted by the Melkite Synod of Bishops with overwhelming majority support (only two of the bishops did not sign the decree).

 

[jmj1984]

If then the Orthodox churches can concede papal supremacy and infallibility, purgatory (with at least some form of pain though it need not be fire), the immaculate conception, indulgences and the later ecumenical councils then yes we would share the same faith. However I have shown Prima Facie evidence that the leaders of several orthodox churches did not agree to these things.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

If then the Orthodox churches can concede papal supremacy and infallibility, purgatory (with at least some form of pain though it need not be fire), the immaculate conception, indulgences and the later ecumenical councils then yes we would share the same faith. However I have shown Prima Facie evidence that the leaders of several orthodox churches did not agree to these things.

Well, before any Orthodox accepts papal supremacy it would first be necessary to specify exactly what that supremacy is. To date Rome has been generally vague and has changed its expression of it throughout history. Purgatory is a non-issue. Everyone believes that there is some form of continued purgation after death, even the Orthodox. No one has defined what exactly that purgation consists of. Its all just theory and speculation. But there is general agreement that some form of purgation can take place after death. The Byzantine expression of it would be more focused on a continued theosis after death rather than pain and fire. The immaculate conception is also a non-issue. Byzantines call the Blessed Virgin “spotless,” “all-holy, all-pure, most highly blessed and glorious Lady…” We believe that she is without sin from the moment of her birth to her dormition. The issue surrounding the immaculate conception is not so much whether or not Mary was sinless. The real issue is the nature of “original/ancestral sin” and its transmission. Here the Byzantine tradition simply differs from the Latin. But with regards to the Blessed Virgin, in essence we believe the same thing.

I can’t say anything about indulgences because of my own ignorance on the matter. I do think it rather odd that one can receive certain amounts of time out of purgatory for doing specific acts, especially considering that on the other side of this life time is probably measured quite differently.

And with regards to the later councils, the Roman Church has never issued a definitive list of Ecumenical Councils. I’ve heard that the original list of Ecumenical Councils was drawn up by St. Robert Bellarmine. Supposedly he actually drew up two lists that differed in their numbering and in what Councils were included. History has shown us that just because a Council calls itself Ecumenical does not, in fact, make it so. Eastern Catholics, in general, will hold that the later councils are “orthodox,” but many, while affirming their orthodoxy, will say that they are not ecumenical. This has been the opinion of a good number of Melkite hierarchs. I believe the retired Ukrainian Patriarch Lubomyr held the same belief (fellow Ukrainians correct me if I’m wrong).

Your evidence that the leaders of several Orthodox Churches don’t agree with these things really doesn’t amount to much than these leaders expressing their personal opinion. It is difficult, when dealing with Orthodoxy, to pin down just exactly what it is that they believe Rome has gotten wrong. Many scholars and leaders will cling to the old polemics (e.g. filioque, immaculate conception, purgatory, etc.), but there is a growing consensus that the old polemics did not adequately express either the situation itself, or the Roman doctrines. All will agree, however, that the role of the papacy is the primary, if not the only real issue dividing us today. It isn’t really even about papal infallibility anymore. It’s more about what exactly is the extent of the Pope’s powers. Can he really intervene in the affairs of any particular Church without said Church asking for intervention? These are questions that scholars and the hierarchies of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are working on to this day. We certainly won’t answer them definitively here in our little forum.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, before any Orthodox accepts papal supremacy it would first be necessary to specify exactly what that supremacy is. To date Rome has been generally vague and has changed its expression of it throughout history.

I can’t see how the First Vatican Council or for that matter the Councils of Trent or Florence were ‘Vague’ about the matter, they were rather precise about the issue, as were innumerable encyclicals over the years.

Purgatory is a non-issue. Everyone believes that there is some form of continued purgation after death, even the Orthodox. No one has defined what exactly that purgation consists of. Its all just theory and speculation. But there is general agreement that some form of purgation can take place after death. The Byzantine expression of it would be more focused on a continued theosis after death rather than pain and fire.

So long as theres some acceptance of pain theres no issue.

The immaculate conception is also a non-issue. Byzantines call the Blessed Virgin “spotless,” “all-holy, all-pure, most highly blessed and glorious Lady…” We believe that she is without sin from the moment of her birth to her dormition. The issue surrounding the immaculate conception is not so much whether or not Mary was sinless. The real issue is the nature of “original/ancestral sin” and its transmission. Here the Byzantine tradition simply differs from the Latin. But with regards to the Blessed Virgin, in essence we believe the same thing.

Not what the previous encyclicals said but yes I accept there is a tradition regarding her sinlessness ergo it shouldnt be problem except for the more polemic individuals. As regards the nature of original sin that could be more problematic.

I can’t say anything about indulgences because of my own ignorance on the matter. I do think it rather odd that one can receive certain amounts of time out of purgatory for doing specific acts, especially considering that on the other side of this life time is probably measured quite differently.

And here we come to a key misunderstanding regarding indulgences, they are not issued for a period of time, when they were issued with a particular time attached to them this was to do with what the equivalent amount of prayer was e.g a 100 days indulgence was equal to 100 days of prayer, not the amount of time in purgatory. Regardless the doctrine regarding indulgences is De Fide and has been raised by the Church in negotiations with particular churches so its certainly a matter that must be settled.

And with regards to the later councils, the Roman Church has never issued a definitive list of Ecumenical Councils. I’ve heard that the original list of Ecumenical Councils was drawn up by St. Robert Bellarmine. Supposedly he actually drew up two lists that differed in their numbering and in what Councils were included. History has shown us that just because a Council calls itself Ecumenical does not, in fact, make it so. Eastern Catholics, in general, will hold that the later councils are “orthodox,” but many, while affirming their orthodoxy, will say that they are not ecumenical. This has been the opinion of a good number of Melkite hierarchs. I believe the retired Ukrainian Patriarch Lubomyr held the same belief (fellow Ukrainians correct me if I’m wrong).

All the councils called ecumenical by The Catholic Church are ecumenical, this teaching has been repeated so many times by the Catholic Church that it has acquired the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Further the reasoning behind not accepting this councils as ecumenical is faulty, the reasons typically given are that the orthodox werent invited or didnt participate -not true in the case of florence-. This isnt entirely true they often were but refused to come and besides had already seceeded from The Church, the church does not have to invite those outside it in order to make a council ecumenical that is self-evident. Another reason given is that said councils 'don’t affect them’, again this is not true, in refining the truth and establishing the boundaries of orthodoxy they affect the whole church and in the case of a council like Florence or the first Vatican Council its simply not true, they did directly affect the whole church.

Your evidence that the leaders of several Orthodox Churches don’t agree with these things really doesn’t amount to much than these leaders expressing their personal opinion. It is difficult, when dealing with Orthodoxy, to pin down just exactly what it is that they believe Rome has gotten wrong. Many scholars and leaders will cling to the old polemics (e.g. filioque, immaculate conception, purgatory, etc.), but there is a growing consensus that the old polemics did not adequately express either the situation itself, or the Roman doctrines. All will agree, however, that the role of the papacy is the primary, if not the only real issue dividing us today. It isn’t really even about papal infallibility anymore. It’s more about what exactly is the extent of the Pope’s powers. Can he really intervene in the affairs of any particular Church without said Church asking for intervention? These are questions that scholars and the hierarchies of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are working on to this day. We certainly won’t answer them definitively here in our little forum.

Indeed true, but these opinions were they’re official opinions issued in response to please of reconciliation from The Holy See, they thus acquire a significant weight. As for the extent of the Popes powers and infallibility both issues have been defined by the First Vatican Council explicitly.

 

[Warrenton]

I can’t see how the First Vatican Council or for that matter the Councils of Trent or Florence were ‘Vague’ about the matter, they were rather precise about the issue, as were innumerable encyclicals over the years.

I have a question: has the actual exercise of the pope’s power changed through history, and if so, was it always the pope’s decision to change it?

Related to this is a second: does the pope have the power to agree refrain from the exercise of any of his power?

 

[Aramis]

Orthodox do not give Catholics communion because they say that Catholics do not hold the same beliefs as Orthodox. And it is not only in one area, but in many different areas.

Tell that to the village priest who labels Catholics “Orthodox enough for me!”

 

[louis91766]

However I have shown Prima Facie evidence that the leaders of several orthodox churches did not agree to these things.

I have read the same thing and have come to the same conclusion as you on this. My feeling is that Catholics are overly optimistic about the chances for reunion and do not see these differences as seriously as do the Orthodox.

 

[louis91766]

Tell that to the village priest who labels Catholics “Orthodox enough for me!”

Which priest in which village were you talking about? I can’t tell him unless I know who he is.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

As to the original thoughts expressed in the thread, I would just add that intercommunion is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

 

[Aramis]

Which priest in which village were you talking about? I can’t tell him unless I know who he is.

Several throughout Alaska. But that was 15+ years ago. The new bishop may or may not have changed the standards. But as of 4 years ago, I was invited to confession by the pastor of the Orthodox parish in Kenai. He was rather surprised I didn’t accept, until I pointed out that there was a Roman parish nearby and that the permission to fulfill my obligation in an Orthodox parish is only allowed when I can’t get to a Catholic parish.

 

[DL82]

As to the original thoughts expressed in the thread, I would just add that intercommunion is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

What has been expressed, however, is some kind of strained, in-exceptional-circumstances communion, which is probably a pretty accurate expression of the current state of affairs.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

What has been expressed, however, is some kind of strained, in-exceptional-circumstances communion, which is probably a pretty accurate expression of the current state of affairs.

Many of us, as a matter of principle and faith, would not seek sacraments outside of our Church even in dire situations. If it is not normally allowed, then why betray our principles and beliefs at the most important time; at the gates of death?

 

[Diakonia]

As to the original thoughts expressed in the thread, I would just add that intercommunion is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

Well said!

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

I have read the same thing and have come to the same conclusion as you on this. My feeling is that Catholics are overly optimistic about the chances for reunion and do not see these differences as seriously as do the Orthodox.

I would have to agree with you there. The issues are much more serious to most Orthodox (laity and monastics especially), but it seems our Hierarchs don’t quite see it that way. Coming from the Antiochian Church, I have seen Bishops allow Melkite Priests in the sanctuary during DL, when even the Orthodox Laity are not allowed in the sanctuary without a blessing from the Priest. I would say to our Hierarchs, keep the council of florence in mind when you are working on this unity issue with other churches. Don’t forget that it is the faithful who make up the church, not just the Bishops/clergy. (Remember the Old Believers). Just some thoughts.

The Sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!