Two questions about the EC & EO

[Aramis]

No intelligent person in the Eastern Orthodox Church denies the right of the Eastern Catholics to exist. That is not what offends Eastern Orthodox. What offends us is when Eastern Catholics claim that one can be Orthodox and in Communion with Rome at the same time or when Eastern Catholics try to tell our people that there is no difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Your “own” people are the MAJOR source for this. While your hierarchy officially denies communion to Catholics, on the ground, in the middle east, pastors are apparently not asking, and the faithful not volunteering, which side they were chrismated on - Syro-Byzantine Parishes are Syro-byzantine parishes for many, no matter which bishop they answer to.

Which says there is a HUGE AO catechesis issue. And the local AO parish seems to not point out that remaining a member of the KofC indicates continued union with and obedience to Rome, and is incompatible with the Orthodox faith as expressed by the Antiochian Orthodox Church. (The Solemn Promises of a Knight of Columbus include affirming that one is “a Practical Catholic in communion with the Holy See.”)

 

[Aramis]

That is what the press reported. That forced our Holy Synod to act. It is a principle of Orthodox theology that in order to be in Communion with a Church we have to be able to be in Communion with all the Churches that are in Communion with them. We told this to the Lutherans in our dialogue with them. The Lutherans are in Communion with all sorts of Churches, therefore, if we were to reach doctrinal agreement with them, we would also have to reach doctrinal agreement with all the Churches that are in Communion with the Lutherans before we could enter into Communion with the Lutherans. The same principle applies to the Melkites. Before we could enter into Communion with the Melkites we would also have to enter into Communion with Rome since the Melkites are in Communion with Rome.

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet, the AOC has retained communion with several canonical orthodox churches that were not in communion with all the other canonicals, but only some… This during the 20th C. Including the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad… who were not in communion with all of Orthodoxy, but were in communion with Moscow. The AO didn’t break communion with Moscow.

Or the Romanian issues. Or with the French Orthodox (prior to their last departure from canonicity).

Sounds more like lip-service.

 

[dvdjs]

That is what the press reported. That forced our Holy Synod to act.

This initiative was not delivered through the press but through direct communication to the Antiochian Patriarchate. It did not proclaim dual communion, but the possibility and the Melkite support of it. It didn’t come out of thin air, but resumed the thrust of a earlier direct dialogue between the Melkites and AOs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative
melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/a-call-for-unity-the-melkite-synod

 

[dvdjs]

I am an Orthodox Archpriest and am well qualified to define what it means to be Orthodox.

I think those qualified to define are bishops within their sees.

I believe that an honest evaluation would show that the ECCs have not been totally innocent of aggression against Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe. In fact my information is that they have been very aggressive.

I have never proclaimed innocence on the part of Catholics so I don’t see your point. But here again you argue without compunction that informed by a sense of proportion. Did GCs after the fall of communism conspire with the local government in the liquidation of the EO churches?

… I went and the Priest was offended that I refused to serve with him or receive Communion. That is why I am so sensitive on this subject.

You should be sensitive. This is good.

It is hostile attitudes like yours that has severely damaged the effort to heal the division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Let the Eastern Europeans deal with their own problems, do not bring them to America to cause tension between Catholics and Orthodox in this country.

I am sorry that you think I have a hostile attitude. I don’t think it hostile in the least to ask for reciprocity and proportionality in the the discussion of relations. I don’t ever initiate on these subjects, just respond to one-sided, unbalanced statements that get made here to give the other side and *** some balance.

We are all part of world-wide Churches. If there are parts of the world in which GCCs are not legally sanctioned and still subject to suppression, that is a problem for all of us. Attempting to sweep that under the rug does not help alleviate tensions anywhere.

 

[dvdjs]

And yet, the AOC has retained communion with several canonical orthodox churches that were not in communion with all the other canonicals, but only some…

They are well-qualified to define what it means to be Orthodox. Even as they may disagree with others equally qualified.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Your “own” people are the MAJOR source for this. While your hierarchy officially denies communion to Catholics, on the ground, in the middle east, pastors are apparently not asking, and the faithful not volunteering, which side they were chrismated on - Syro-Byzantine Parishes are Syro-byzantine parishes for many, no matter which bishop they answer to.

Which says there is a HUGE AO catechesis issue. And the local AO parish seems to not point out that remaining a member of the KofC indicates continued union with and obedience to Rome, and is incompatible with the Orthodox faith as expressed by the Antiochian Orthodox Church. (The Solemn Promises of a Knight of Columbus include affirming that one is “a Practical Catholic in communion with the Holy See.”)

I know of no American Antiochian Orthodox Priest who would allow one of his members to be a member of the KofC. We teach our people that they may not receive Holy Communion outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
We are not in the Middle East. We are in America. Here we make it clear that only Orthodox Christians in good standing may receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[babochka]

And the local AO parish seems to not point out that remaining a member of the KofC indicates continued union with and obedience to Rome, and is incompatible with the Orthodox faith as expressed by the Antiochian Orthodox Church. (The Solemn Promises of a Knight of Columbus include affirming that one is “a Practical Catholic in communion with the Holy See.”)

Shouldn’t this also be a concern for the Knights of Columbus, that local councils are disregarding the rules regarding membership?

 

[babochka]

We are all part of world-wide Churches. If there are parts of the world in which GCCs are not legally sanctioned and still subject to suppression, that is a problem for all of us. Attempting to sweep that under the rug does not help alleviate tensions anywhere.

We can’t simply ignore the situation in other parts of the world and say that it doesn’t apply to us because it isn’t happening here. That doesn’t mean that Greek Catholics and Orthodox here need to hold onto old grudges, no matter how egregiously we have treated one another in the old country.

 

[Peter_J]

This initiative was not delivered through the press but through direct communication to the Antiochian Patriarchate. It did not proclaim dual communion, but the possibility and the Melkite support of it. It didn’t come out of thin air, but resumed the thrust of a earlier direct dialogue between the Melkites and AOs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative
melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/a-call-for-unity-the-melkite-synod

I myself was a little confusing by Father’s statement originally, but now I think it is actually quite clear: the press *reported *that the Melkite Holy Synod had proclaimed themselves in communion with us while remaining in Communion with Rome.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I myself was a little confusing by Father’s statement originally, but now I think it is actually quite clear: the press *reported *that the Melkite Holy Synod had proclaimed themselves in communion with us while remaining in Communion with Rome.

One problem with the Melkite idea is that fails to consider the fundamental disagreements between East and West on exactly what authority the Pope had before 1054. Eastern Orthodox believe that Rome only held a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction like the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Many Roman Catholics believe that the Pope has always had most, if not all, of the authority recognize as belonging to the Pope by the 1st Vatican Council. Eastern Orthodox cannot accept anything even close to the kind of papal authority proclaimed by the 1st Vatican Council.
Even if it was not a unilateral declaration of union with Antioch while remaining in Communion with Rome, the whole thing was mishandled by the Melkite Holy Synod. Instead the Melkites should have transmitted its proposal privately to the Antiochian Orthodox Holy Synod instead of taking the Antiochians by surprise by issuing their press release.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

One problem with the Melkite idea is that fails to consider the fundamental disagreements between East and West on exactly what authority the Pope had before 1054. Eastern Orthodox believe that Rome only held a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction like the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Many Roman Catholics believe that the Pope has always had most, if not all, of the authority recognize as belonging to the Pope by the 1st Vatican Council. Eastern Orthodox cannot accept anything even close to the kind of papal authority proclaimed by the 1st Vatican Council.
Even if it was not a unilateral declaration of union with Antioch while remaining in Communion with Rome, the whole thing was mishandled by the Melkite Holy Synod. The Melkites should have transmitted its proposal privately to the Antiochian Orthodox Holy Synod instead of taking the Antiochians by surprise by issuing their press release.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Instead the Melkites should have transmitted its proposal privately to the Antiochian Orthodox Holy Synod instead of taking the Antiochians by surprise by issuing their press release.

Fr. John W. Morris

I don’t want to go on the record or anything, since I have never really heard this issue addressed … but just speaking off-the-cuff, I’d say your statement sounds entirely reasonable.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. For the record, I’ve never understood why Melkites are only interested in dual communion with you guys and not with anyone else – not even the Syriac Orthodox Church. (Or maybe I just haven’t given it enough time yet.)

 

[dzheremi]

Why would they be interested in the SOC, Peter? The Melkites are the traditional adversaries (ecclesiastically speaking) of the non-Chalcedonians.

 

[frjohnmorris]

P.S. For the record, I’ve never understood why Melkites are only interested in dual communion with you guys and not with anyone else – not even the Syriac Orthodox Church. (Or maybe I just haven’t given it enough time yet.)

Probably because the Melkites are a schism from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Why would they be interested in the SOC, Peter? The Melkites are the traditional adversaries (ecclesiastically speaking) of the non-Chalcedonians.

I cannot see any logical reason that the MGCC, any more than the Antiochian Orthodox, should be strongly at odds with the SOC. (Granted, I don’t know if my fellow Melkites agree with me.)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Probably because the Melkites are a schism from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

Fr. John W. Morris

You may want to restudy that history Fr. John, the Melkites theologically, via Apostolic Succession, historically, and patristically ARE the EO Patriarchate of Antioch reunited with Rome. The EO Patriarchate of Constantinople re-created your modern EO Patriarchate of Antioch hierarchy to replace those who reunited with Rome (which was almost everyone), since they could not accept the decision of the Local Church to be EO and in union with Rome. To be quite literal, the current re-instituted EO Patriarchate of Antioch is in schism from the original Melkite Church by a decision of the EO Patriarchate of Constantinople.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

You may want to restudy that history Fr. John, the Melkites theologically, via Apostolic Succession, historically, and patristically ARE the EO Patriarchate of Antioch reunited with Rome. The EO Patriarchate of Constantinople re-created your modern EO Patriarchate of Antioch hierarchy to replace those who reunited with Rome (which was almost everyone), since they could not accept the decision of the Local Church to be EO and in union with Rome. To be quite literal, the current re-instituted EO Patriarchate of Antioch is in schism from the original Melkite Church by a decision of the EO Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Not quite. The Ecumenical Throne in union with the rest of the Church filled a vacancy in the See of Antioch. When a Bishop goes into heresy or Schism, he is no longer a bishop. The same was done in Alexandria after the fallout over Chalcedon.

 

[dvdjs]

Probably because the Melkites are a schism from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

Historically, the other way around.

 

[Peter_J]

Not quite. The Ecumenical Throne in union with the rest of the Church filled a vacancy in the See of Antioch. When a Bishop goes into heresy or Schism, he is no longer a bishop. The same was done in Alexandria after the fallout over Chalcedon.

Well, it’s a little more complicated than SyroMalankara’s description. But having said that, I really must say that this ^^ argument misses the mark completely.