J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
Im sorry, but Russia needs to submit to Constantinople when (not if, but when) reunion occurs. Everyone has been scared of the Russians, but the Pope and the EP will have to take care of this.
- Status
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Great question. I have no idea which Orthodox church would absorb what is now the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Would it be in the same situation as ACROD? Would they join the OCA?
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.
T
twf
Guest
Exactly. How does Moscow get around the ancient canons that state that Constantinople is the highest “court of appeal”, so to speak, in disputes among the Eastern Churches?
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I like this thread. It gives me a feeling of such radiant optimism, that it hurts just to come back down to Earth. 
In any case, even after a Catholic-Orthodox union, the issues of jurisdiction would still need to be resolved. ‘One bishop per city’ was the principle of local jurisdiction in the original Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and it has been unfortunate that since then, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have created dioceses/eparchies in each other’s canonical jurisdiction, and even within their respective Communions, the same territory can belong to different particular/autocephalous churches. Therefore, even if all EC churches were to merge with their EO counterparts, the new Eastern Catholic-Orthodox jurisdictions would still overlap with each other and with the Western Church’s dioceses as well. It wouldn’t be the end of all problems.
Therefore, I envision that the degree of reintegration would vary. Certain sui iuris Churches who feel such an affinity would rejoin their autocephalous counterparts, while those without a direct Orthodox counterpart (Maronites) or are even opposed to it (UGCC and UOC-MP) will retain distinct corporate identities (and whether the ROC will accept this possibility will be a problem). However, canonically speaking, exclusively claiming the same jurisdiction is not unprecedented or impossible, as you may remember that the Syrians, Melkites and Maronites all claim the Patriarchate of Antioch, but are yet in communion with each other as part of the Catholic Church.
In any case, I believe that even after the union, there will be a great deal of dialogue centered on sorting out the difficult issue of which patriarchate controls which diocese/eparchy, so we wouldn’t have to worry about merging particular/autocephalous Churches. In the meantime, there is certainly room for hierarchies and eparchies/dioceses to remain distinct while sharing the same jurisdiction in the interim as we all await a resolution to this matter.
The same pretty much goes with regard to the various autocephalous churches. Being autocephalous, they have a mind of their own, and any union cannot simply be negotiated between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch but with representatives from the whole Orthodox Communion. It’ll be a long and painful process.
Last I heard, the Orthodox Churches in America want to create a unified hierarchy as a single autocephalous church. I presume that if this were ever to be realised before the Catholic-Orthodox union, then the Byzantine Rite Churches would join such an entity, if they do assimilate at all.
In any case, even after a Catholic-Orthodox union, the issues of jurisdiction would still need to be resolved. ‘One bishop per city’ was the principle of local jurisdiction in the original Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and it has been unfortunate that since then, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have created dioceses/eparchies in each other’s canonical jurisdiction, and even within their respective Communions, the same territory can belong to different particular/autocephalous churches. Therefore, even if all EC churches were to merge with their EO counterparts, the new Eastern Catholic-Orthodox jurisdictions would still overlap with each other and with the Western Church’s dioceses as well. It wouldn’t be the end of all problems.
Therefore, I envision that the degree of reintegration would vary. Certain sui iuris Churches who feel such an affinity would rejoin their autocephalous counterparts, while those without a direct Orthodox counterpart (Maronites) or are even opposed to it (UGCC and UOC-MP) will retain distinct corporate identities (and whether the ROC will accept this possibility will be a problem). However, canonically speaking, exclusively claiming the same jurisdiction is not unprecedented or impossible, as you may remember that the Syrians, Melkites and Maronites all claim the Patriarchate of Antioch, but are yet in communion with each other as part of the Catholic Church.
In any case, I believe that even after the union, there will be a great deal of dialogue centered on sorting out the difficult issue of which patriarchate controls which diocese/eparchy, so we wouldn’t have to worry about merging particular/autocephalous Churches. In the meantime, there is certainly room for hierarchies and eparchies/dioceses to remain distinct while sharing the same jurisdiction in the interim as we all await a resolution to this matter.
I agree with you too. However, the EP is not the Eastern Pope (also initialised as EP, interestingly). While I do wish that Russia had remained within the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of claiming a patriarchy with pretensions of grandeur and power, since then Russia has practically attained independence from the EP, and even the EP’s canonical influence over them has waned from patriarchate-metropolitan control to an elder patriarchate-younger patriarchate relationship. The only thing the Russian Patriarch would predictably submit to would be a new ecumenical council.
The same pretty much goes with regard to the various autocephalous churches. Being autocephalous, they have a mind of their own, and any union cannot simply be negotiated between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch but with representatives from the whole Orthodox Communion. It’ll be a long and painful process.
S
Sepp
Guest
It should be remembered that Moscow is not alone in her current disputes with Constantinople. This is a major issue within Orthodox “politics,” and it’s not one with any clear resolution in sight. Many Eastern Orthodox outside of Russia also reject Constantinople’s claims.
This is one of the great difficulties in trying to organize a corporate reunion of all of the EO churches. Saying that Moscow needs to “submit to Constantinople” will delight some Orthodox, while antagonizing many others. Supporters of Moscow will point out that if one accepts the usual Orthodox interpretation of how Constantinople got its place (that is, due to the temporal power of the city), then Moscow should now surpass it anyway.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That’s a very Latin thing to say.
Russia need not “submit” to anyone. They hold to the Orthodox faith and are an autocephalous Church in their own right. Constantinople has no authority in matters relating to Russia.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Agreed, but the problem of overlapping jurisdictions has nothing to do with barriers to unity, since both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have them now. We could resolve that matter long after reunion if we wanted to.
Interesting. Of course the Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch will remain independent, since it never had an Orthodox counterpart, but I hadn’t thought about the rest of what you pointed out.
Yeah, I know. In fact, Russia is independent from the EP, right? And not just “practically” - the Orthodox Church of Russia is in fact fully autocephalous.
I see what you mean, and I promise, we Latins really do understand that Moscow and Constantinople are autocephalous - that they are separate patriarchates. We know that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not “the Orthodox pope.”
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I never said it was. In fact, you’ve just repeated all that I have said.
I noted that overlapping jurisdictions is a fact that both the Catholic and Orthodox Communions have currently face, so unless one of the churches wants to make it an issue (more on that later), it won’t be a legal impediment to reunion.
What I meant to say was that reunion wouldn’t simply clean the slate of all the problems we faced in our organisation. Perhaps the hardest part is establishing reunion at all, but it will also be a huge challenge to sort out the outstanding issues between us after the reunion. Hence, that is why I say that post-reunion dialogue could be predominantly occupied by the matters of jurisdiction.
However, now that you have brought it up, I would not be so certain as to pass off the issue of overlapping jurisdiction as a non-issue in reunion. As previous posters and I have noted, the Ukranian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate could insist on returning the UGCC to their control as a pre-condition for reunion. Perhaps they may see sense and will not press such an issue, but we cannot say for sure.
Indeed it is. If autocephaly is your definition of independence, then yes. However, I refrain from using ‘independent’ strictly because it, like so many other terms such as ‘autonomy’ and ‘sui iuris’, carries certain connotations about its use. Independence suggests that the Russian Patriarch is not tied in any way to the EP, which is not true, being that both are bound by the precepts of Orthodoxy and are also in full communion with each other. Hence, it is not strictly independent.
The reason why I call it ‘practically independent’ is that for all intents and purposes, the Russian Patriarchate operates according to its own agenda. It is because of this that it has often come into conflict often with the EP and other autocephalous churches, despite being in full communion with them. It would therefore sometimes appear like the Russian Patriarchate were its own Church and acted separately, although it is not to me, a lay Catholic of the Church of Rome, to judge if they truly are trying to be so.
Now, I shall stop my commentary here, lest I unintentionally insult the honour of the Russian Patriarchate. I have no wish to do so. I respect the Russian Patriarchate and our Russian Orthodox brothers here, and it is not in my interests to slander them, least of all over a thread as delightful as this.
In any case it’s really just semantics. Don’t lose sleep over it.
As an aside, has anyone thought about the Oriental Orthodox? There have been common Christological declarations between the OOC and CC, and there is an opportunity for dialogue to see if their miaphysite views could be reasonably reconciled with our dyophysite theology. I foresee that if a CC-EOC reunion were possible, the next viable dialogue partner would be the Oriential Orthodox.
D
dochawk
Guest
Do you realize that this is, word for word, the EO statement on the issues?
You might do some research and then bring your opinion in line with what Rome teaches on this subject . . .
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
ACROD & Pittsbrgh presumably merge, and that’s probably the easy one. OK, Romanian Catholic folds into Romanian, we mumble abut whether Melchite folds into AO or vice versa, and so forth.
UGC and the plethora of UO are an issue; the only thing that will concvably fly is an autonomous and autocephalous Ukrainian church.
In theory, any of the Orthdox jurisdictions in the. US could be used as the base to fold the others into–but choosing one would be an issue. AFAIK, only ACROD, Pittsburgh, and AOC are intrinsically american jurisdiction (or is GOA, too?). Somone who is not the leader of his jurisdiction will be the only possible choice to head the new entity . . .
hawk
I
Ignatius
Guest
Another change from the Catholic side would be that we would be permitted to receive the Eucharist or even change to the Orthodox without restriction, which many Latins would immediately do.
H
Hesychios
Guest
lol
Yes, you are right. This preoccupation with ‘submission’ is very Latin. It will go no where.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I have my doubts about that.
However, details of how any reconciliation (I don’t think ‘reunion’ is the appropriate term) would be put into practice would have to be worked out.
The current proper practice is that Orthodox who are not members of the parish should introduce themselves to the priest prior to liturgy … before contemplating presenting themselves for the Holy Eucharist. This helps the priest decide if the person is prepared to receive (communion is not an anonymous kind of thing). Most priests know their flock and know when they last confessed (confession is also not anonymous).
As far as ‘switching’ permanently, there might still be a period of training required.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
Is this the same for ECs (within the EC Churches)?
Also, don’t some ROC people claim that in the EO order of precedence, they are higher than Constantinople (based on numbers of members)? I’m not attacking the ROC, remember…I actually like them alot. Just something I read.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’ve never heard that claim. I’ve never heard Russia claim anything other than fifth place in order of precedence.
Besides, based on number of members, the Romanian Orthodox Church would be higher.
H
Hesychios
Guest
From my experience, no.
In most EC parishes I have attended the ‘unknown’ persons strolling up for communion are assumed to be Latin Catholics. This destroys an important Orthodox practice but they are used to it by now.
The whole patriarchal system is a matter of practical administration.
In the beginning there were no patriarchs, it is an evolved system (what might be called discipline in the RC).
The earliest higher office we have good information on is the bishop of a metropolis … which is the major city of a province. So we have always called them the metropolitan bishop (or Archbishop). Patriarchs are just metropolitans, but the ‘inner circle’ of patriarchs are of the ancient mother churches which sent out missionaries. These were once great cities and the Apostles and other disciples reached them at an early date so they provided leadership for the church when Christianity was a small and persecuted band numbered in hundreds and thousands, not in millions.
Constantinople was declared a leading patriarchal city when Constantine rebuilt the city as his new capital. It was a new city built specifically as a Christian community, pagan temples were not allowed. It was the new Rome and a commercial center and quickly became quite large.
In fact, the reason why the First Ecumenical Council was held at Nicea was that the city of Constantinople was not ready.
So we can see that the church was using practical criteria to determine the order of precedence and was willing to reorder itself under changing conditions.
Even so, all patriarchs are still limited in direct authority to the bounds of their own synods, so there is no tradition of one synod being in submission to another. In fact, the early church fathers were always aware of this as a potential problem.
There is the famous case of the patriarch of Antioch claiming authority over the island of Cyprus. An Ecumenical Council rebuked the patriarch, declared that the church of Cyprus was to evermore be completely free of the control of outside churches, and warned that all other churches should take care to guard against this practice.
Canon 8 of Ephesus [abbreviated] reads:
…The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors.
But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect!
Thus neither the patriarch of Antioch, the patriarch of Constantinople nor the patriarch of Rome would ever be allowed to control that church or others like it.
The order of precedence is a secondary matter, it does not effect the administration of the church, the church in Russia is self-headed, but much larger than the church at Constantinople. In fact almost all Orthodox churches are larger than the one at Constantinople these days. Some people are making the argument that the church needs to reevaluate the order of precedence, which, after all is a discipline of the church and can be changed.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
I thought They were 10th…I’ve never heard that claim. I’ve never heard Russia claim anything other than fifth place in order of precedence.
Besides, based on number of members, the Romanian Orthodox Church would be higher.
Well, when I am (God willing) an EC Priest, I would like to restore this at a local level.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Not according to any list I’ve ever seen.
- Status