Precisely what sort of unity do you want?

[Nine_Two]

Going back to:

I have to say, but I think the Orthodox can be a bit anti-Western.

Undeniably. Just as Latin Catholics can be anti-eastern. It depends on the individual, but it most cases it seems the anti-ness (defining it as an overt opposition, rather than just disagreement - a definition I’ve seen used) is caused by having equal parts knowledge, and ignorance on a subject.

 

[Peter_J]

Protestants generally like to try and convert people. With Catholics, it’s…pretty predictable, let’s call it that. It largely depends on the Reformers being right about a few things. But then with the EO, we wonder where are your Reformers? Without that, we struggle to find reasons to ask EO Christians to convert.

A fair number of Protestants do try to come up with those reasons. We’d like to convert everyone, after all. But when the Reformed history is (in effect) taken away, it’s much harder. This can wind up looking like arbitrary favor or special treatment that’s given to everyone except western Catholics, but there is a real reason behind it. Any time a Protestant tries to convert someone from a more ancient form of Christianity, we need a Reformation that we can make a positive argument for. Any time we don’t have that, we’re less likely to try and very unlikely to do much even when we do try hard.

When dealing with western Catholicism, particularly the Latin rite, that’s the only time we get what we need. Reformation equals critical leverage, and we get that nowhere else. If it was there, some Protestants would use it. Not all, but anyone who goes off on Catholicism in really squicky ways would go off on similar things in similar ways, I promise you that. A greater amount of ignorance along with less familiarity with friends and family who personally show us good qualities in that particular expression of Christianity would probably make the situation even worse by comparison. But we don’t have the opportunity to do the same things, and that is why it doesn’t happen.

Interesting. I think I see what you’re saying (although granted the fact that I’ve never been protestant probably make it harder for me). If you regard the Protestant Reformation as good and God-inspired, then you have to wonder why a Reformation never took place with respect to the Eastern Orthodox.

It seems to me that we might even say that the absense of an “Eastern Reformation” (as it were) undermines protestant arguments.

 

[Peter_J]

Undeniably. Just as Latin Catholics can be anti-eastern. It depends on the individual, but it most cases it seems the anti-ness (defining it as an overt opposition, rather than just disagreement - a definition I’ve seen used) is caused by having equal parts knowledge, and ignorance on a subject.

True (and I’d say I have experienced it in my own life, but that’s a whole other can of wax). I’m just saying that “anti-westernness” is a bigger problem than most Orthodox seem to think it is.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Peter J;
I’m just saying that “anti-westernness” is a bigger problem than most Orthodox seem to think it is.

It seems to be this lack of love for each other that stands in the way of unity, how do we love our seperated brothers and sisters as we love ourselves?

Blessings

Eric

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

TIf a Catholic chooses to convert to Oriental Orthodoxy instead of Eastern Orthodoxy, would it be sensible to say that he wanted to have Apostolic Christianity without Chalcedon or the Tome of Leo?

Why not? That’s not so crazy as you think it is.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

That’s not really fair to the Maronites to say… they never broke communion in the first place, nor acknowledged any such break. It’s not their fault they were out of communication with the Latin Church for so long.

A little bird told me they were monothelites for a very long time. They seem to deny it, but William of Tyre in the 12th century mentioned them converting from monothelism.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why not? That’s not so crazy as you think it is.

Because the only sensible reason for converting is if you believe something to be true. Oriental Orthodoxy is not Apostolic Christianity without the Tome of Leo, nor is Roman Catholicism Apostolic Christianity with the Tome of Leo. That is a very simplistic and reductionist way of understanding things, and quite frankly, it doesn’t do justice to either faith.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Because the only sensible reason for converting is if you believe something to be true. Oriental Orthodoxy is not Apostolic Christianity without the Tome of Leo, nor is Roman Catholicism Apostolic Christianity with the Tome of Leo. That is a very simplistic and reductionist way of understanding things, and quite frankly, it doesn’t do justice to either faith.

Yes, you’re right. I recant.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S.
“Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern.”

• Archbishop John Maximovitch (an Orthodox saint)

If only all Orthodox felt that way!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Are we even talking about the same thing? Because for the Roman Catholic communion and the Orthodox to be united, they would have the same faith and hence the only real question from a “typological” point of view (as seems to befit the question in the OP) is one of jurisdiction. I do not see how retaining Eastern Catholic jurisdictions as they are would help this, when there would no longer be any distinctive Eastern Catholic ecclesiology and theology that would require it.

It’s obvious from this reply that no, we’re not talking about the same thing.

All I was pointing out was that the lack of communion between the eastern Orthodox Church and the oriental Orthodox Church would not make it impossible for communion to be restored between the Catholic Church and one of those two churches.

I’m well aware of that. In fact, that was my point: They (the Maronites) would have no place to go, if the solution is that all should be absorbed into their Orthodox mother church.

Indeed. They’d remain as they are.

I have been left with the impression that if they were to convert to Orthodoxy, they felt the SOC to be the most logical choice. Take that as you will.

Sure. That only makes sense.

If you mean in regard to themselves joining with the Antiochian Orthodox Church, then I agree with you. If you mean that they maintain (with you) that all EC Churches will do likewise, then I’m not convinced that’s their official position.

I meant the former, so we’re in agreement.

I don’t see why it’s such a crazy notion, though. It makes perfect sense to me.

So the Syro-Malabars are the Catholic equivalent to the ACoE in India?

I’m not claiming they’re the direct equivalent or anything like that, but their theological and ritual heritage is certainly related to the original Church of the East, rather than to Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
If you mean in regard to themselves joining with the Antiochian Orthodox Church, then I agree with you. If you mean that they maintain (with you) that all EC Churches will do likewise, then I’m not convinced that’s their official position.

Alright, but I would point out that up until that moment you had been talking about the idea that Eastern Catholics Churches, in general, would merge with their “mother churches” (excepting those that don’t have one of course).

I don’t see why it’s such a crazy notion, though. It makes perfect sense to me.

I’m not saying it’s crazy. I simply find it a tad strange that “uniatism” has so many critics, and yet “reverse uniatism” seems to have so few.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Alright, but I would point out that up until that moment you had been talking about the idea that Eastern Catholics Churches, in general, would merge with their “mother churches” (excepting those that don’t have one of course).

Yes, I admit I was. I also admit that as far as I personally am aware, I know only the Melkite Greek Catholic Church to have explicitly adopted this intention.

I’m not saying it’s crazy. I simply find it a tad strange that “uniatism” has so many critics, and yet “reverse uniatism” seems to have so few.

What is “reverse uniatism” by definition but the reversal of something that is universally acknowledged to be flawed?

Who wouldn’t promote, at least theoretically, the ultimate elimination of a flawed system?

 

[Hesychios]

HI Peter,

… I simply find it a tad strange that “uniatism” has so many critics, and yet “reverse uniatism” seems to have so few.

I must confess I am not sure how you define ‘reverse’ uniatism.

Could you expound on this?

Thanks

 

[Seamus_L]

Well for starters, I can’t ever recall a Eastern Catholic online referring to the Orthodox rejoining us. It’s always the other way around, which to me seems like a subtle implication that we’re the ones who need to get it right.

 

[Peter_J]

HI Peter,
I must confess I am not sure how you define ‘reverse’ uniatism.

Could you expound on this?

Thanks

What is “reverse uniatism” by definition but the reversal of something that is universally acknowledged to be flawed?

I agree with you to a certain extent. (I don’t think we could all agree on one definition of “reverse uniatism”, just as I don’t expect that we could all agree on one definition of “uniatism”.) But the thing is, there’s no undoing what has happened in the past; we can only do the best we can with the present.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well for starters, I can’t ever recall a Eastern Catholic online referring to the Orthodox rejoining us. It’s always the other way around, which to me seems like a subtle implication that we’re the ones who need to get it right.

Actually, some do say that the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch would assimilate into what is now called the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, because they maintain that the way the split happened in the eighteenth century points to the latter actually having the canonically legitimate patriarchate of Antioch.

But generally speaking, I don’t think this principle - that eastern Catholic churches should be reabsorbed into their mother Orthodox churches upon reunion - implies that the eastern Catholic churches are somehow wrong to exist, or to be Catholic, etc. It just implies that, from the Catholic point of view, things would be more ideal if they could be both united to the Orthodox churches from which they sprang and in communion with Rome.

It’s not for nothing that the Catholic Church no longer allows Catholic missionaries to plunge into Orthodox regions and attempt to peel away groups of Orthodox faithful to form sui iuris churches.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s obvious from this reply that no, we’re not talking about the same thing.

All I was pointing out was that the lack of communion between the eastern Orthodox Church and the oriental Orthodox Church would not make it impossible for communion to be restored between the Catholic Church and one of those two churches…

Again, I don’t see how this could be the case if the idea of unity involves some level of re-absorption into their mother (Orthodox) churches. As I wrote earlier, there is no Orthodox Chalcedonian Syriac church – the non-Maronite Syriacs who accepted Chalcedon are today known as the Melkites (coming from the Syriac “Malkaya”, meaning “imperial” (those who agreed with the imperial position on Chalcedon). This group has not practiced the Syrian liturgy for centuries, having adopted the Byzantine liturgy quite a long time ago (not sure when, but I would assume it came with the Arabization of their native countries, leading to the loss of Syriac identity).

So the problem of the Maronites in this scheme is that in order to be Orthodox, they either give up their traditional liturgical orientation to Syriac and become Byzantinized like the Melkites were (joining the Antiochian Orthodox, I suppose), or join the Syriac Orthodox Church, perhaps infusing their rite with much more Syriac identity, but giving up Chalcedonian belief in the process. Either way, it would involve some rather extreme adjustment, unless there would be some sort of allowance made on the part of the Antiochians to modify the current Maronite rite in order to make it Orthodox, as they did with the Anglicans and Roman Catholics in creating the Western Rite (the liturgies of St. Tikhon and St. Gregory, respectively).

This is why I felt it relevant to mention that some of the Maronites I have discussed this with have thought that the SOC would be the way to go (not explicitly over or against the Antiochians, I suppose, but I was still somewhat surprised to find that particular personal preference expressed).

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, some do say that the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch would assimilate into what is now called the Melkite Greek Catholic Church,

I think anyone who said that would be criticized for “uniatism”, whereas the idea that eastern Catholic churches should be reabsorbed into their mother Orthodox churches upon reunion is generally not criticized as “reverse uniatism”.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Actually, some do say that the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch would assimilate into what is now called the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, because they maintain that the way the split happened in the eighteenth century points to the latter actually having the canonically legitimate patriarchate of Antioch.

If you read this article, that is correct…

For that reason, I don’t consider that to be uniatism, Peter.

 

[Hesychios]

I think anyone who said that would be criticized for “uniatism”, whereas the idea that eastern Catholic churches should be reabsorbed into their mother Orthodox churches upon reunion is generally not criticized as “reverse uniatism”.

One might call it counter-uniatism, or un-uniatism.