The reunited church

[5Loaves]

Do ECs believe EO “saints” are in Heaven? I asked a local RC priest, who said no, or at least for RCs…

This reminds me of that joke about St. Peter giving a tour of heaven. He tells those in the tour to be quite as they pass a walled off area. “Why?” asks one of them. “That’s where the Catholics are. They think they’re the only ones in heaven.”

 

[5Loaves]

So can even a RC venerate a particulary holy EO saint w/o sin?

We certainly venerate Orthodox saints in my parish. We follow the Orthodox calendar. In December for the next year each of us is given a wall calendar from St. Tikhon (Orthodox) Seminary press which includes all the feasts, citation of the daily scripture readings, and the fastings. On the Feast of All-Saints of North America our Latin (bi-ritual) priest in his homily reminded us that we have the relics a Saint right in our neighborhood, St. John Maximovitch Wonder-worker of Shanghai and San Francisco and we all ought to be sure to spend time venerating them on this feast or in the near future. His unembalmed relics are in a shrine in the nave of Holy Virgin Cathedral. A number of us go there also at times for the weekly Sat. moleben service to Saint John with special prayer intentions. I think we all consider it a great blessing that our parish lies in the shadow of this great cathedral and the relics of this saint of North America.

 

[Ignatius]

So say we are all one happy family again, and the great schism is ended. I know there would be countless problems to be solved, but I just want to focus on one. What would we do about saints? Would ex Orthodox venerate western saints, and would the west venerate eastern saints?
:byzsoc:

Yes.

 

[Ancient1]

I don’t know much about how things are going with this “reuniting” situation (is this a reality people are actually working on? I don’t hear non-Catholics talking about it at all)…but I want to ask, is the Catholic church willing to be flexible in negotiating a compromise with the schism group(s) on all the topics that are “problems to be solved”?

Or is the Church just wanting the other group(s) to come around to their way?

Really working on?!? Heavens, there have been incredible efforts, one might even say historic, by our Holy Father, regarding the Great Schism and the, well, little one that is a more contemporary annoyance.

Realize this is not negotiating a business merger. You cannot “compromise” on truth. Is there a problem with the One True Church founded by Christ and headed by His Vicar on earth desiring the runaway children to come home? And if they do so with a bit of humility instead of demands and long treatises, might harmony and understanding be much easier?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Conversely the Orthodox could say the same about Catholics.

I believe our side is as guilty of the schism as their side is.

 

[Speedypizza]

In regards to the Protestant denominations, how COULD we come up with any plan that would make all of them happy? It would almost be like trying to find one climate for plants and animals from all over the world, it would never work. They cannot agree among themselves, much less us. In fact about the only thing they all seem to agree on is that Catholics are wrong!

Now in regard to the Orthodox Churches, I guess the question I would need to ask is what are the issues that are keeping us apart? From my understanding, we have already solved the issue of where the Holy Spirit comes from and the issue of what kind of bread to use. The only real issue that I know of is that of the Pope. The Orthodox believe that he is the “First among equals” while the Catholics place him in a higher light. However to me if one looks at the Eastern Catholic Churches, I don’t see the Pope issuing many commands. In fact in regard to them he really DOES seem to be “first among equals” and not a reigning tyrant.

I also think part of the problem is one of simple logistics and of definitions. The Orthodox say that the Roman Church broke off from them, where as the Roman Church says the same thing about them. Now I can see how the Orthodox could join with Rome, it would really be as simple as changing the sign out front from Orthodox to Eastern Catholic. Unless of course there are some differences that I do not know about. However how could Rome “Join” with the Orthodox other then us all becoming Orthodox ourselves? What would we do, change our signs to “Western Roman Orthodox?” Even if we did, under whose command would we place ourselves?

 

[CDB1718]

So…but…how specifically, is it being worked on?
Do you know?
I will look it up online. If there have been “incredible” and “historic” efforts, I’m sure there must be tons and tons of examples and information out there on the details. But if you have a few examples, I’d be most appreciative.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/

 

[Nine_Two]

I also think part of the problem is one of simple logistics and of definitions. The Orthodox say that the Roman Church broke off from them, where as the Roman Church says the same thing about them. Now I can see how the Orthodox could join with Rome, it would really be as simple as changing the sign out front from Orthodox to Eastern Catholic. Unless of course there are some differences that I do not know about. However how could Rome “Join” with the Orthodox other then us all becoming Orthodox ourselves? What would we do, change our signs to “Western Roman Orthodox?” Even if we did, under whose command would we place ourselves?

This seems as big an issue as the one about Papacy. We define “reunion” differently. Latins treat it as an administrative union. For us the only change is that the pope would be commemorated in the diptychs. Nothing more.

 

[5Loaves]

Now I can see how the Orthodox could join with Rome, it would really be as simple as changing the sign out front from Orthodox to Eastern Catholic.

In a restored Church we Eastern Catholic Churches would cease to exist. We’d be within our Orthodox Churches. It’s true that the easy part would be changing any signage out front. LOL

 

[5Loaves]

In a restored Church we Eastern Catholic would cease to exist. We’d be within our Orthodox Churches. It’s true that the easy part would be changing any signage out front. LOL

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

According to Catholic teaching, aren’t the outside the Church? I really, really trust this priest I talked to.

I apologize for not having a source for this at this very moment, but this is a half-truth.

They have valid Sacraments, including Holy Orders, which means they have valid bishops. As a result, their churches (i.e. dioceses/eparchies) constitute “true churches” as much as ours do.

Remember when Benedict XVI clarified that technically Protestants don’t have “churches” because they don’t have valid bishops anymore? He called them “ecclesial communities” instead. Well, with the Orthodox, they do have valid bishops (and other Sacraments), so their churches are genuine churches.

That said, you are of course correct, John of Patmos, that Catholic teaching has always insisted that the Body of Christ is the Catholic Church - or, as Vatican II put it (I’m paraphrasing), the fullness of Christ’s Church on earth subsists in the Catholic Church.

So it seems that because they are true churches yet are in schism from the bishop of Rome, their communion is united in some sense - albeit imperfectly - with the Catholic Church.

Thus I cannot agree that they are “outside the Catholic Church.” The fullness of the One True Church does not subsist in their churches, but their churches - because they are valid churches - are in some sense part of or linked to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

As St. Ignatius of Antioch said (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.”

According to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, therefore they are not outside the Catholic Church.

Yes. Catholic teaching does, however, definitely consider the fullness of the Catholic Church to subsist only in those churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff, since he is the head of the College of Bishops.

But it’s certainly untenable to hold that they are “outside the Catholic Church.” They can’t be… as the St. Ignatius of Antioch quote I paraphrased above clearly shows.

There are plenty of post-Schism saints that are venerated by Eastern Catholics as saints. One who is venerated publicly and liturgically is St. Gregory Palamas. He died while not in communion with Rome, yet is still liturgically venerated as a saint by Eastern Catholics, with Rome’s knowledge BTW.

Yeah! On the second Sunday of Great Lent, Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies celebrate St. Gregory Palamas!

Either the CCC or one of the documents of Vatican II says that the Orthodox Churches share an “imperfect” communion with the Catholic Church.

Exactly.

Those who instigated the schism have sinned. But those who are born in a state of schism aren’t. Schismatics are sinners because the break apart the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. But all those who are born into families who are part of the Orthodox faith, they had no hand in the schism. They are born into schism. They were innocent of whatever happened that tore the Church apart. But by being faithful to all traditions of the Church, they have remained true to the faith and thus be part of the true Church.

Precisely.

Fr. Thomas Hopko makes this point. It is improper to refer to all people who are part of other churches as schismatics, just as it is improper to all people who believe in heretical beliefs as heretics. One can’t be a heretic or a schismatic if he was never part of the Church to begin with.

Exactly. This forum’s rule against calling the Orthodox “schismatics” isn’t merely due to the demands of charity; it’s due to the demands of truth. Orthodox Christians are not schismatics; rather, our churches (Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic churches) and theirs are in schism from each other. The latter does not make the former true.

So can even a RC venerate a particulary holy EO saint w/o sin?

Yes.

I, for instance, will be attending a Divine Liturgy at a Ruthenian Catholic parish on March 4. Since that happens to be the Second Sunday of Great Lent, on which Byzantine Christians venerate/celebrate St. Gregory Palamas, by going to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy on that day, it follows logically that I will be venerating him as well.

If you genuinely want to be a part of the Eastern Catholic tradition, you must learn to venerate the holy men and women of the East. This includes venerating non-Catholic Orthodox saints.

Agreed.

That makes me curious: does anyone know if “western-rite” Orthodox venerate post-Schism western saints? Maybe not really recent ones, but would they venerate, say, St. Francis of Assisi?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Now in regard to the Orthodox Churches, I guess the question I would need to ask is what are the issues that are keeping us apart? From my understanding, we have already solved the issue of where the Holy Spirit comes from and the issue of what kind of bread to use. The only real issue that I know of is that of the Pope. The Orthodox believe that he is the “First among equals” while the Catholics place him in a higher light. However to me if one looks at the Eastern Catholic Churches, I don’t see the Pope issuing many commands. In fact in regard to them he really DOES seem to be “first among equals” and not a reigning tyrant.

Unfortunately, many Orthodox are of the opinion that multiple issues remain. They often consider, for instance, purgatory, original sin, the Immaculate Conception, the treasury of merit, and a couple other issues as problematic as well. I agree with you that the exercise of papal primacy and supremacy is the only substantive barrier to unity.

Now I can see how the Orthodox could join with Rome, it would really be as simple as changing the sign out front from Orthodox to Eastern Catholic.

Actually, they probably wouldn’t even do that, since - as another poster pointed out - the eastern Catholic churches would be reabsorbed into the Orthodox churches. The visible change that would reflect unity would happen inside - not outside - those churches, at the point in their Divine Liturgy when they would now commemorate the pope of Rome in the diptychs.

However how could Rome “Join” with the Orthodox other then us all becoming Orthodox ourselves? What would we do, change our signs to “Western Roman Orthodox?”

Both churches would be Catholic and Orthodox, as both claim to be right now. The difference in terminology is for convenience, really: in substance, the Catholic Church claims to have held and taught the Orthodox Faith her whole history - in short, to be a part of Holy Orthodoxy already. Likewise, the Orthodox consider their communion to be the Catholic Church. In a reunited communion, every church could have both labels. We would all be “Orthodox Catholics.”

Even if we did, under whose command would we place ourselves?

We’d be under our bishops, of course. Who else?

And our bishops would all be in communion with each other. The Latin Church would function as it now does (probably). The eastern Orthodox churches would be run by their synods. The difference is that if they needed help beyond that, the pope of Rome would step in.

I don’t know much about how things are going with this “reuniting” situation (is this a reality people are actually working on? I don’t hear non-Catholics talking about it at all)…but I want to ask, is the Catholic church willing to be flexible in negotiating a compromise with the schism group(s) on all the topics that are “problems to be solved”?

Yes, we are.

We already are willing to see much post-Schism teaching on, say, original sin as western theology rather than universally binding dogma.

It is possible that, if they really wanted it, we could remove the filioque from the Creed of the Latin Church.

And finally, both Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed their willingness to rework the way Roman supremacy functions. Church teaching since Vatican I and II has already brought Catholic teaching on ecclesiology more explicitly close to patristic standards and norms.

This seems as big an issue as the one about Papacy. We define “reunion” differently. Latins treat it as an administrative union. For us the only change is that the pope would be commemorated in the diptychs. Nothing more.

Not sure if that’s true. The pope of Rome would not expect to “administrate” your churches through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. You guys would be under your bishops and your synods, as you always have been. The pope of Rome would be there for you if you needed him - just as he was in the first millennium.

In a restored Church we Eastern Catholic Churches would cease to exist. We’d be within our Orthodox Churches.

That’s true but presents challenges of its own. The Melkites give the impression that they are happy and eager to one day be reabsorbed into the Orthodox Church of Antioch.

But then there are churches like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church… many of them are hell-bent against being absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church, which is certainly understandable…

 

[ConstantineTG]

But then there are churches like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church… many of them are hell-bent against being absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church, which is certainly understandable…

Who says the UGCC will be absorbed by the ROC? The UGCC in the past has said they will not seek a Patriarchate and be under a Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate even today if a canonical Patriarch for the Orthodox Church is established in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians are against being under Russia, both politically and ecclesiastically. I’m pretty sure in the event of a reunion, the Ukrainians will want a Ukrainian Church under a Ukrainian Patriarch leading the Church from Kyiv.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Who says the UGCC will be absorbed by the ROC?

The ROC, of course.

The Moscow patriarchate thinks Ukraine is theirs, and they don’t want to give it up. Isn’t that the reason the current Orthodox Kyiv patriarchate is not canonically recognized by the rest of the Orthodox?

Do you really think reunion would be enough for the MP to suddenly warm up to the fact that Ukraine is not Russia?

Many Ukrainians are against being under Russia, both politically and ecclesiastically.

That was my point: the Moscow patriarchate would expect to have jurisdiction over them in a reunited church, and the Ukrainian Catholics would rightly take issue with that.

I’m pretty sure in the event of a reunion, the Ukrainians will want a Ukrainian Church under a Ukrainian Patriarch leading the Church from Kyiv.

That was my point: that desire is the reason they would be loath to be absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church, which - unfortunately - would be the canonical default in how the Orthodox Church is structured today.

How exactly will they get this Ukrainian patriarchate without Moscow’s cooperation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The ROC, of course.

The Moscow patriarchate thinks Ukraine is theirs, and they don’t want to give it up. Isn’t that the reason the current Orthodox Kyiv patriarchate is not canonically recognized by the rest of the Orthodox?

Well, the Ecumenical Patriarch surely isn’t opposed to accepting them into Communion. Its the Russians that are blocking them from gaining canonical status.

Do you really think reunion would be enough for the MP to suddenly warm up to the fact that Ukraine is not Russia?

Of course there’s a deeper political reason here. This in fact could be a great barrier to union as well. Or worse, the UGCC just would go into schism from the united Church. But I doubt the Vatican would allow the UGCC to be absorbed into the Russian Church agianst their will.

That was my point: the Moscow patriarchate would expect to have jurisdiction over them in a reunited church, and the Ukrainian Catholics would rightly take issue with that.

That was my point: that desire is the reason they would be loath to be absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church, which - unfortunately - would be the canonical default in how the Orthodox Church is structured today.

How exactly will they get this Ukrainian patriarchate without Moscow’s cooperation?

Today, the UOC-KP I believe is working with the other Orthodox Churches including the Ecumenical Patriarch, and of course the UGCC is asking the Pope to establish a Patriarchate for Ukraine. It is important for them that a canonical Patriarchate from either side is established prior to union. This will grant the Ukrainian Church the leverage she needs to remain autocephalous from the ROC.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I apologize for not having a source for this at this very moment, but this is a half-truth.

They have valid Sacraments, including Holy Orders, which means they have valid bishops. As a result, their churches (i.e. dioceses/eparchies) constitute “true churches” as much as ours do.

Remember when Benedict XVI clarified that technically Protestants don’t have “churches” because they don’t have valid bishops anymore? He called them “ecclesial communities” instead. Well, with the Orthodox, they do have valid bishops (and other Sacraments), so their churches are genuine churches.

That said, you are of course correct, John of Patmos, that Catholic teaching has always insisted that the Body of Christ is the Catholic Church - or, as Vatican II put it (I’m paraphrasing), the fullness of Christ’s Church on earth subsists in the Catholic Church.

So it seems that because they are true churches yet are in schism from the bishop of Rome, their communion is united in some sense - albeit imperfectly - with the Catholic Church.

Thus I cannot agree that they are “outside the Catholic Church.” The fullness of the One True Church does not subsist in their churches, but their churches - because they are valid churches - are in some sense part of or linked to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

As St. Ignatius of Antioch said (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Yes. Catholic teaching does, however, definitely consider the fullness of the Catholic Church to subsist only in those churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff, since he is the head of the College of Bishops.

But it’s certainly untenable to hold that they are “outside the Catholic Church.” They can’t be… as the St. Ignatius of Antioch quote I paraphrased above clearly shows.

Yeah! On the second Sunday of Great Lent, Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies celebrate St. Gregory Palamas!

Exactly.

Precisely.

Exactly. This forum’s rule against calling the Orthodox “schismatics” isn’t merely due to the demands of charity; it’s due to the demands of truth. Orthodox Christians are not schismatics; rather, our churches (Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic churches) and theirs are in schism from each other. The latter does not make the former true.

Yes.

I, for instance, will be attending a Divine Liturgy at a Ruthenian Catholic parish on March 4. Since that happens to be the Second Sunday of Great Lent, on which Byzantine Christians venerate/celebrate St. Gregory Palamas, by going to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy on that day, it follows logically that I will be venerating him as well.

Agreed.

That makes me curious: does anyone know if “western-rite” Orthodox venerate post-Schism western saints? Maybe not really recent ones, but would they venerate, say, St. Francis of Assisi?

Thanks for writing a book length reply. When does the movie come out?
Anyway, thanks again. I was so happy:extrahappy:when I found that catholic theology teaches that John Maxomovitch is in Heaven, as he has always been my favorite Orthodox saint. Could one way of looking at be that the Orthodox are in the doorway so to speak, of the Catholic Communion? I hear some Orthodox venerate Thomas Aquinas.

I personally, if I was EC, would want my church to be absorbed by the EO counterpart in case of union.

 

[5Loaves]

That’s true but presents challenges of its own. The Melkites give the impression that they are happy and eager to one day be reabsorbed into the Orthodox Church of Antioch.

But then there are churches like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church… many of them are hell-bent against being absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church, which is certainly understandable…

Thus the rest of my comment which you left out

It’s true that the easy part would be changing any signage out front. LOL

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, the Ecumenical Patriarch surely isn’t opposed to accepting them into Communion. Its the Russians that are blocking them from gaining canonical status. This in fact could be a great barrier to union as well. Or worse, the UGCC just would go into schism from the united Church. But I doubt the Vatican would allow the UGCC to be absorbed into the Russian Church agianst their will.

Precisely. And that’s what worries me: what would happen if reunion were achieved? It would be an ugly picture if the Moscow Patriarchate wouldn’t budge, the pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate refused to risk stepping on Moscow’s toes, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics refused to be Russian Orthodox… it would be a mess.

This may be an exaggeration, but I read on another forum - an Orthodox one - someone’s opinion that this essentially political crisis is the real reason reunion isn’t already moving forward. They were of the opinion that we really are ready to start taking serious steps toward it, and that the only reason the Ecumenical Patriarchate isn’t moving forward on it is because they know the messy hostilities that would result when push would come to shove among the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP), Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, the UAOC, and the UGCC. Like the pope of Rome, it seems the EP just doesn’t want to touch that.

Today, the UOC-KP I believe is working with the other Orthodox Churches including the Ecumenical Patriarch, and of course the UGCC is asking the Pope to establish a Patriarchate for Ukraine. It is important for them that a canonical Patriarchate from either side is established prior to union. This will grant the Ukrainian Church the leverage she needs to remain autocephalous from the ROC.

Okay, I can see that. Especially if autocephaly were canonically granted to the UOC-KP. There’s no way the Ukrainian church in a reunited communion would be under the MP then.

But yeah, I guess it would help even if the UGCC had a formally recognized patriarch.

Thanks for writing a book length reply. When does the movie come out? Anyway, thanks again.

Haha, no problem!

I personally, if I was EC, would want my church to be absorbed by the EO counterpart in case of union.

Well, good, 'cause that’s the plan. You’re transferring to the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church? I guess if reunion happens in your lifetime you’ll be in the Romanian Orthodox Church, then!

Thus the rest of my comment which you left out

True, but even “changing the sign” creates some questions: what will a reunited communion call itself? There are many legitimate possibilities! LOL… “Roman Orthodox” as a synonym for “Latin Catholic” sounds so weird to my ears.

 

[russialover]

I have a question, what would happen with the OCA, would they merge with the Ruthenians and ACROD, or be placed back under Moscow’s jurisdiction? Also, if reunion took place, the names of the local churches would be without the name “Orthodox” or “Catholic” , but simply “the Latin Church” or “the Greek Antiochian Church”

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I have a question, what would happen with the OCA, would they merge with the Ruthenians and ACROD, or be placed back under Moscow’s jurisdiction? Also, if reunion took place, the names of the local churches would be without the name “Orthodox” or “Catholic” , but simply “the Latin Church” or “the Greek Antiochian Church”

I too have thought of this! I don’t think you’ll have the OCA merge with teh Ruthenians.