Precisely what sort of unity do you want?

[Sixpence]

Full unity, of course. I know. But more precisely, do you insist on autonomous unity to the exclusion of autocephalous unity? Would you be entirely accepting of a union in which some Eastern churches are autocephalous? Would you take some middle road, where autocephaly is tolerated as what you hope would be a transitory phase en route to autonomy? Basically, to what extent is an autpcephalous union acceptable to you- or, in fact, a thing that you would readily call full unity?

And perhaps more importantly, your precise desires are in view of what, exactly, as far as Catholic history prior to the Schism? Is it your understanding that the Eastern churches and the Western church spent a thousand years in an autonomous sort of union…or an autocephalous sort of union?

This is an important distinction at either end. Everyone wants unity, but it helps a lot when you get a lot more precise than that. More precise looks like saying autocephaly is unacceptable, it must be an autonomous relationship, and the bonds between Eastern Orthodox churches must be eliminated so that only autonomous relationships exist with Rome- and this is done in view of what you believe to be a thousand year history of a strictly autonomous setup. Just one example. As another example, perhaps you favor an autocephalous relationship between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox- in view of a long history of autocephaly when last you had full communion- and you would do this at risk of changing the landscape of Eastern Catholicism by losing the people who prefer autocephaly to autonomy, which could wind up being all of them.

The short version: Precisely what unity is it that you want in terms of autonomy and autocephaly, and in view of what sort of first-millennium union? Autonomous or autocephalous?

I’m especially curious to see if anyone wants to say y’all used to be autocephalous toward each other but now that’s somehow unacceptable. There’s an explanation behind that one that really needs to get out there, but I don’t know if anyone really wants to say that. This is why it helps me when people get more precise than usual for a minute, and this is why I ask for it.

Thank you all, much obliged, and I certainly hope that ECs and EO have much to say as well. And if there’s better ways to be precise than this, I am wide open to suggestions.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In the case of EO-RC reunion, which wont happen anytime soon, if ever, the Eastern Catholic Churches will be absorbed into their Orthodox mother Church.

 

[Sixpence]

In the case of EO-RC reunion, which wont happen anytime soon, if ever, the Eastern Catholic Churches will be absorbed into their Orthodox mother Church.

Ahhh. That is very good to know. I was not clear in that until you told me. I’m a little more clear on how unlikely the reunion is- it’s not actually going to happen. Probably. Very probably will not happen. But as far as what people want- I am interested nonetheless.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In the case of EO-RC reunion, which wont happen anytime soon, if ever, the Eastern Catholic Churches will be absorbed into their Orthodox mother Church.

Is there a Ruthenian Orthodox Church to speak of, or would we just be assumed to be rebellious Ukrainians?

But seriously, this may be the inevitable result, but both sides have already agreed that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist.

It is of course our destiny to one day disappear. I would think this would happen organically, after full communion is restored.

To me, an ecclesiological compromise that retains as much of the “best” of both models would be preferable. What that might look like is well beyond my imagination, competence and pay grade, but the unified whole would hopefully be greater than the sum of the parts in present form.

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation offers a possible framework in its statement, Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future, released in October 2010. It evaluates aspects of current ecclesiastical structure on both sides in a fairly balanced manner.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

ByzCathCantor, do you really believe there will ever be reunion?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is there a Ruthenian Orthodox Church to speak of, or would we just be assumed to be rebellious Ukrainians?

But seriously, this may be the inevitable result, but both sides have already agreed that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist.

It is of course our destiny to one day disappear. I would think this would happen organically, after full communion is restored.

To me, an ecclesiological compromise that retains as much of the “best” of both models would be preferable. What that might look like is well beyond my imagination, competence and pay grade, but the unified whole would hopefully be greater than the sum of the parts in present form.

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation offers a possible construct in its statement, Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future, released in October 2010.

I was about to say, that approach works well with the Melkites, Romanian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Ethiopian Catholics, and some others, but it doesn’t work quite so well with groups like the Ruthenians who have no real clear Orthodox counterpart church.

 

[Sixpence]

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation offers a possible construct in its statement, Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future, released in October 2010. It evaluates aspects of current ecclesiastical structure on both sides in a fairly balanced manner.

Ooohhh, very handy. I hope they talk about things like autonomy and autocephaly. I hadn’t considered the possibility of something in between that incorporates both somehow- I assumed that was a first-level distinction of forms that are mutually exclusive. But perhaps there is a combination or third way that I don’t know about.

Why would you need that, though? Is there some reason why both forms are unacceptable to at least one party? And what about the first millennium- if this creative solution were sitting back there at the time when you were last united, you could just mimic that. But it’s not there. What is there, and why don’t you like it anymore?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

ByzCathCantor, do you really believe there will ever be reunion?

I do, its a question of how long - sadly perhaps not in our lifetime, but who knows?

To be candid, I now fear that the continuity of the effort might be effected depending upon who might succeed Pope Benedict XVI (may God grant him many more blessed years!). However, one would hope and pray that the commitment expressed by all of the Pontiffs since Blessed John XXIII will continue in the succession when transition comes.

I also feel strongly that the conditions under which both Catholic and Orthodox communities live in the Middle East and elsewhere is a clear rallying call for greater mutual cooperation in the very present. These communities of ancient Christians must be supported and preserved at all costs. Could we not start there?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Is there some reason why both forms are unacceptable to at least one party? And what about the first millennium- if this creative solution were sitting back there at the time when you were last united, you could just mimic that. But it’s not there. What is there, and why don’t you like it anymore?

Not suggesting there is anything “wrong”, per se, with either model, but an honest evaluation would surely show strengths and weaknesses in both. Even in secular terms, we might compare and contrast, say, the U.S. vs. U.K. forms of government, and come to some agreement that there are strengths in each that might be preferrable in some form of modified governmental form.

 

[Peter_J]

Full unity, of course. I know. But more precisely, do you insist on autonomous unity to the exclusion of autocephalous unity? Would you be entirely accepting of a union in which some Eastern churches are autocephalous? Would you take some middle road, where autocephaly is tolerated as what you hope would be a transitory phase en route to autonomy? Basically, to what extent is an autpcephalous union acceptable to you- or, in fact, a thing that you would readily call full unity?

And perhaps more importantly, your precise desires are in view of what, exactly, as far as Catholic history prior to the Schism? Is it your understanding that the Eastern churches and the Western church spent a thousand years in an autonomous sort of union…or an autocephalous sort of union?

This is an important distinction at either end. Everyone wants unity, but it helps a lot when you get a lot more precise than that. More precise looks like saying autocephaly is unacceptable, it must be an autonomous relationship, and the bonds between Eastern Orthodox churches must be eliminated so that only autonomous relationships exist with Rome- and this is done in view of what you believe to be a thousand year history of a strictly autonomous setup. Just one example. As another example, perhaps you favor an autocephalous relationship between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox- in view of a long history of autocephaly when last you had full communion- and you would do this at risk of changing the landscape of Eastern Catholicism by losing the people who prefer autocephaly to autonomy, which could wind up being all of them.

The short version: Precisely what unity is it that you want in terms of autonomy and autocephaly, and in view of what sort of first-millennium union? Autonomous or autocephalous?

I’m especially curious to see if anyone wants to say y’all used to be autocephalous toward each other but now that’s somehow unacceptable. There’s an explanation behind that one that really needs to get out there, but I don’t know if anyone really wants to say that. This is why it helps me when people get more precise than usual for a minute, and this is why I ask for it.

Thank you all, much obliged, and I certainly hope that ECs and EO have much to say as well. And if there’s better ways to be precise than this, I am wide open to suggestions.

This question is problematic to answer. Consider this: imagine Rome approached each autocephalous Orthodox church, one at a time, and said “We want you to become Catholic, and we’ll allow you your autocephalous status.” You can be sure that Rome would not receive one single “yes”, or even one single “maybe”, just all "no"s.

But also keep in mind that Rome would not do what I just imagined it doing – even if there were a chance of getting one “yes” – because that would basically be an attempt to “steal” one of those churches.

 

[Peter_J]

In the case of EO-RC reunion, which wont happen anytime soon, if ever, the Eastern Catholic Churches will be absorbed into their Orthodox mother Church.

That’s a heck of a statement to make, especially without offering an argument for it.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

That’s a heck of a statement to make, especially without offering an argument for it.

I heard that in the case of reunion the UGCC metropolitan offered to make place for the Kiev patriarch, I might be wrong though.

 

[dzheremi]

I was about to say, that approach works well with the Melkites, Romanian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Ethiopian Catholics, and some others, but it doesn’t work quite so well with groups like the Ruthenians who have no real clear Orthodox counterpart church.

Even more interesting: What would happen to the Maronites, or the Chaldeans? The Maronites are unique for their claim of being Chalcedonian Syriacs (the other Chalcedonians in the Syrian world having been Byzantinized centuries ago and now Arabic-speaking and Arab-identifying Antiochians), and of course the Chaldeans come from the heretical Nestorians, so they have nothing to go back to, either.

If the Coptic Catholics and Ethiopian Catholics and others who apostasized from the OO Church would be going back to their Oriental Orthodox Church, then you can’t really have reunion between Byzantium and Rome without first having reunion between the OO and the EO, right? And it seems somewhat less than likely that the Maronites would return en masse to the Syriac Orthodox, given a history of bad blood between the two, such as the claim that 350 Maronites were martyred by the Syriac Orthodox following the Council of Chalcedon (I believe that they still commemorate this yearly, though the Syriac Orthodox of course disavow that such a thing ever happened).

 

[Peter_J]

I heard that in the case of reunion the UGCC metropolitan offered to make place for the Kiev patriarch, I might be wrong though.

Alright but assuming you’re not wrong, I don’t see how you get from that to this:

In the case of EO-RC reunion, which wont happen anytime soon, if ever, the Eastern Catholic Churches will be absorbed into their Orthodox mother Church.

Given how strong the general sentiment against “uniatism” is, it’s pretty surprisingly to hear this ^^ sort of “reverse uniatism”.

 

[Peter_J]

Even more interesting: What would happen to the Maronites, or the Chaldeans? The Maronites are unique for their claim of being Chalcedonian Syriacs (the other Chalcedonians in the Syrian world having been Byzantinized centuries ago and now Arabic-speaking and Arab-identifying Antiochians), and of course the Chaldeans come from the heretical Nestorians, so they have nothing to go back to, either.

If the Coptic Catholics and Ethiopian Catholics and others who apostasized from the OO Church would be going back to their Oriental Orthodox Church, then you can’t really have reunion between Byzantium and Rome without first having reunion between the OO and the EO, right? And it seems somewhat less than likely that the Maronites would return en masse to the Syriac Orthodox, given a history of bad blood between the two, such as the claim that 350 Maronites were martyred by the Syriac Orthodox following the Council of Chalcedon (I believe that they still commemorate this yearly, though the Syriac Orthodox of course disavow that such a thing ever happened).

I said something relevant to this on a recent thread. I’ll just cite it here for any interested reader who didn’t see it over there:

There’s a school within Catholicism that says that there can’t be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris); there’s also another school that says that there can be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris) but only if they are not the same rite. Hence according the second school there can be differences, for example, between the thinking of the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (because they’re not the same rite); but not between the Melkite Church and the UGCC (because they are the same rite).

I think Fone Bone’s statement just takes this one step further: not only is the thinking in the Melkite Catholic Church, the UGCC, the Romanian Catholic Church, etc all the same b/c they all use the Byzantine Rite, but it is the same as the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church which also uses the Byzantine Rite.

 

[Sixpence]

Not suggesting there is anything “wrong”, per se, with either model, but an honest evaluation would surely show strengths and weaknesses in both. Even in secular terms, we might compare and contrast, say, the U.S. vs. U.K. forms of government, and come to some agreement that there are strengths in each that might be preferrable in some form of modified governmental form.

I see what you’re saying, although I would probably go in more of a European Union direction since the US and UK are way past any questions of unity and are only focused on friendship at this point. Of course, the EU is a new establishment of unity rather than a restoration of former unity- so I might even want to look at the subcontinent of India, which used to be unified. The only downside is that there is no path to reunion there, and it shows us far more barriers than it gives us models for a solution.

Come to think of it, I am hard pressed to come up with any examples of countries that used to be unified, stopped being unified, and actually want reunion at some later time. Unless something like a civil war would count- but that’s probably even more of a stretch for this discussion.

Maybe I have to look more carefully at some of the Balkan states. Maybe some of them split up and got back together. I wonder how different the former unions were compared to the reunions?

 

[dzheremi]

How is that at all relevant to what I wrote, Peter? I’m not seeing it. The Maronites are not Byzantines, and there is no Syriac Church that is also Chalcedonian that isn’t an Eastern Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches wouldn’t still exist after union, so…

 

[Sixpence]

That’s a heck of a statement to make, especially without offering an argument for it.

I don’t know either way on this, I’m just looking at what you guys have to say.

 

[Sixpence]

This question is problematic to answer. Consider this: imagine Rome approached each autocephalous Orthodox church, one at a time, and said “We want you to become Catholic, and we’ll allow you your autocephalous status.” You can be sure that Rome would not receive one single “yes”, or even one single “maybe”, just all "no"s.

But also keep in mind that Rome would not do what I just imagined it doing – even if there were a chance of getting one “yes” – because that would basically be an attempt to “steal” one of those churches.

Yea, they would have to work something out as a group.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

In the case of EO-RC reunion, which wont happen anytime soon, if ever, the Eastern Catholic Churches will be absorbed into their Orthodox mother Church.

I think entropy plays a big part in the “not reunited” ordeal.