Two questions about the EC & EO

[frjohnmorris]

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.

I have studied the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch.
I am not going to get into an argument about who is the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. However, the legitimate Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is John X.
If one leave the Eastern Orthodox Church and unites with Rome, the Church that he leads is no longer Eastern Orthodox. They have left the Eastern Orthodox Church and become Eastern Catholics. Therefore, the Melkites cannot legitimately claim to be Eastern Orthodox but are a new Church dating back to 1724 and are Eastern Catholics. It is very simple if a Church is not in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is not Eastern Orthodox. If a Church is instead in Communion with Rome it is Eastern Catholic.
When the Crusaders took control of Antioch in 1098, they exiled the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and set up a Latin Patriarchate of Antioch. This event rather than 1054 turned what been a quarrel between Rome and Constantinople into a lasting schism. Although the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch returned from exile in Constantinople in 1269, the office of Latin Patriarch continued until 1964, although the last Latin Patriarch of Antioch died in 1953. When Cyril VI left the Eastern Orthodox Church and submitted to Rome he began the Melkite Catholic Church. After the Melkite schism, the Eastern Orthodox under Antioch appealed to Constantinople as provided for in Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon, the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451, and chose Patriarch Sylvester to assume the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Therefore the legitimate Eastern Orthodox Patriarch and successor to St. Peter the first Bishop of Antioch is John X, the current Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Even Rome does not recognize the Melkite Patriarch as the only legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. There is a Maronite and Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch. As I have mentioned until 1964 the office of Latin Patriarch of Antioch existed. Thus at one time Rome had not one, but four Patriarchs of Antioch.
There is also a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, the first of which was Sergius of Tella the successor to Severus who was deposed. Sergius of Tella was consecrated by Jacob Baradaeus in 544. For that reason Syriac Orthodox usually call themselves Jacobites.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

It is very simple if a Church is not in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is not Eastern Orthodox. If a Church is instead in Communion with Rome it is Eastern Catholic.

That’s good, since Eastern Catholic is what I claim to be (not Eastern Orthodox).

 

[Peter_J]

Therefore, the Melkites cannot legitimately claim to be Eastern Orthodox but are a new Church dating back to 1724 and are Eastern Catholics.

I’m truly sorry to see that your interest is only in polemics.

You’re probably aware of this, but I’ll say it anyhow: Catholic polemicists use this very same line of argumentation, e.g. claiming that Eastern Orthodox “started in 1054 (or some other such date) since before that they were Catholic” and the like.

 

[Peter_J]

Therefore, the Melkites cannot legitimately claim to be Eastern Orthodox but are a new Church dating back to 1724 and are Eastern Catholics.

Well, in some ways we are. But I don’t think that does justice to the complexity of the situation.

 

[dvdjs]

I have studied the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch.
I am not going to get into an argument about who is the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. However, the legitimate Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is John X.
If one leave the Eastern Orthodox Church and unites with Rome, the Church that he leads is no longer Eastern Orthodox. They have left the Eastern Orthodox Church and become Eastern Catholics. Therefore, the Melkites cannot legitimately claim to be Eastern Orthodox but are a new Church dating back to 1724 and are Eastern Catholics. It is very simple if a Church is not in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is not Eastern Orthodox. If a Church is instead in Communion with Rome it is Eastern Catholic.
When the Crusaders took control of Antioch in 1098, they exiled the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and set up a Latin Patriarchate of Antioch. This event rather than 1054 turned what been a quarrel between Rome and Constantinople into a lasting schism. Although the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch returned from exile in Constantinople in 1269, the office of Latin Patriarch continued until 1964, although the last Latin Patriarch of Antioch died in 1953. When Cyril VI left the Eastern Orthodox Church and submitted to Rome he began the Melkite Catholic Church. After the Melkite schism, the Eastern Orthodox under Antioch appealed to Constantinople as provided for in Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon, the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451, and chose Patriarch Sylvester to assume the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Therefore the legitimate Eastern Orthodox Patriarch and successor to St. Peter the first Bishop of Antioch is John X, the current Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Even Rome does not recognize the Melkite Patriarch as the only legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. There is a Maronite and Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch. As I have mentioned until 1964 the office of Latin Patriarch of Antioch existed. Thus at one time Rome had not one, but four Patriarchs of Antioch.
There is also a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, the first of which was Sergius of Tella the successor to Severus who was deposed. Sergius of Tella was consecrated by Jacob Baradaeus in 544. For that reason Syriac Orthodox usually call themselves Jacobites.

Fantastic.

On this very thread a person writing under the same name begrudges dredging up the past - even when that past is a mere hundred years ago. Or talking of the old country. And then we leap from EP intrusion into the affairs of the Antiochians in the 1700’s back to the crusades. All in the middle east. Hopspodi pomiluj.

Here is something relevant from Father Taft in “Orthodox Constructions of the West”.
fordham.edu/images/theology/orthodoxy/taft%20final.pdf
A good read.

… towards the middle of the eighth century, the Byzantines unilaterally and uncanonically removed the dioceses of Calabria, Sicily, Eastern Illyricum, and perhaps also Otranto— all areas historically within the patriarchate of the West from time immemorial— from the Roman obedience and placed them under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

This incorporation by political force, of areas that belonged by age-old right to the patriarchate of the West under Rome, included the forced imposition of Byzantine ecclesiastical authority on conquered areas of the non-Orthodox East, including Catholic Southern Italy. Indeed, Southern Italy provides an interesting parallel to the Crusades,
about which the Orthodox remain continually exercised, collapsing chronology and acting as if the Crusades happened yesterday.

By the end ofthe sixth century, Southern Italy was almost totally Latin except for colonies of Greeks in Reggio- Calabria and some of the coastal towns. This situation was to change rapidly from the seventh century, when the campaign of Byzantine Emperor Constans II drove the Saracens from Sicily, reviving Byzantine imperial and ecclesiastical hegemony there and in Calabria, The Byzantine re-conquest of Southern Italy was carried out with thorough consistency across the whole sociopolitical horizon, including the ecclesiastical. Those who deplore the incursions of the Latin Crusaders in the East and their setting up of Latin hierarchies in competition with the already existing age-old Oriental ecclesiastical structures conveniently forget that the Byzantines did the exact same thing in Italy. Their military help against the Arab incursions in Italy was no more disinterested than the Latin help against the Turks during the Crusades, and Byzantine ecclesiastical politics in Italy also involved an imposed religious Byzantinization of the conquered areas under Byzantine political control.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m truly sorry to see that your interest is only in polemics.

You’re probably aware of this, but I’ll say it anyhow: Catholic polemicists use this very same line of argumentation, e.g. claiming that Eastern Orthodox “started” in 1054 (or some other such date).

The truth is not polemics. How can a Church claim to be Eastern Orthodox unless they are in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? The Melkite Church dates back to 1724, when part of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch went out of Communion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church and joined the Catholic Church, thus becoming Eastern Catholics.
I know that the Melkites claim to believe the same thing that Eastern Orthodox believe, but that is not true, because through their Communion with Rome, they cannot be legitimately considered Eastern Orthodox. According to Eastern Orthodox theology if a Bishop is in Communion with another Bishop he shares a common doctrine with the other Bishop. Therefore, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view despite what they claim to believe, by being in Communion with Rome they recognize Roman Catholic doctrine as valid. One must be honest there are very important differences between Eastern Orthodox doctrine and Roman Catholic doctrine, especially concerning the papacy.
It is polemics to argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church started in 1054 because the 4 Patriarchates that we now call Eastern Orthodox have existed since Apostolic times. The truth is that what was once one united Church split into two parts in 1054 or more accurately in 1098 when the Crusaders exiled the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. The 4 Patriarchs in the East did not cease to exist, but began to be called the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of the West, the Bishop of Rome did not cease to exist, but began to be called the Roman Catholic Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

.
It is polemics to argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church started in 1054 because the 4 Patriarchates that we now call Eastern Orthodox have existed since Apostolic times. The truth is that what was once one united Church split into two parts in 1054 or more accurately in 1098 when the Crusaders exiled the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. The 4 Patriarchs in the East did not cease to exist, but began to be called the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of the West, the Bishop of Rome did not cease to exist, but began to be called the Roman Catholic Church.

It is polemics to argue that the Melkite Church started in the 1700s because that Patriarchates that we now call Melkite has existed since Apostolic times. The Patriarch of Antioch did not cease to exist, in various schisms, but began to be called Melkite after Chalcedon even to this day.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

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.

How so? Yes, the Antiochian Church had a split…this is true. But from our POV, anyone who came under the Pope was (and is) in Schism…and any Bishop who did so (or does so) was (or is) no longer a Bishop and forfeits their See.

So from our POV, the chair was empty, and it was filled. I understand that they trace their roots to that time, but it doesn’t necessarily lend them legitimacy.
The current dialogue is about fixing this situation…which would be very very very nice. I understand that there were many circumstances, and a lot of things happened. But, that doesn’t change the fact that a Schismatic Bishop ceases to be a Bishop. I understand the Latins have things such as “illicit but valid” etc etc…but this is not how we view it.

 

[dzheremi]

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.)

Really? You can’t? Hmm. I respect you, Peter, and I’m glad to read that you don’t see any reason why there shouldn’t be a rapprochement, but I think maybe a study of the history of the Chalcedonian controversies, schism, and its aftermath may be in order.

 

[Peter_J]

Really? You can’t? Hmm. I respect you, Peter, and I’m glad to read that you don’t see any reason why there shouldn’t be a rapprochement, but I think maybe a study of the history of the Chalcedonian controversies, schism, and its aftermath may be in order.

It’s a little hard to imagine how that will prove that your claim is any more true of the MGCC than the AOC, since the distinction didn’t exist back then. Bit of a cop-out if you ask me.

 

[Peter_J]

How so? Yes, the Antiochian Church had a split…this is true. But from our POV, anyone who came under the Pope was (and is) in Schism…and any Bishop who did so (or does so) was (or is) no longer a Bishop and forfeits their See.

I guess what I should have said is: if you say that “The same was done in Alexandria after the fallout over Chalcedon.” then you are conceding more than I would ever claim, because I don’t claim that we have the same kind of legitimacy as the OO Coptic patriarchate.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is polemics to argue that the Melkite Church started in the 1700s because that Patriarchates that we now call Melkite has existed since Apostolic times. The Patriarch of Antioch did not cease to exist, in various schisms, but began to be called Melkite after Chalcedon even to this day.

Just because a group of Eastern Catholics took for themselves the title given to Chalcedonians does not mean that they are the legitimate heirs to the real Melkite Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The group that now calls itself Melkite began in 1724 when some people left the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and went into Communion with Rome. Eastern Orthodox respect Catholicism enough to not presume to tell Catholics what they believe about what it means to be a Catholic. Catholics should not presume to tell Eastern Orthodox what we believe about what it means to be Eastern Orthodox.
I want to ask you a question. What do the Melkites believe about the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council? Give me an honest answer. You cannot accept the doctrinal decisions of the 1st Vatican Council and honestly call yourself Eastern Orthodox. If the Melkites do not accept the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council why are they in Communion with Rome which does?
The Melkite proposal of 1991 that we ignore the very real doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and simply declare ourselves in Communion with each other before we have reached doctrinal agreement is not a solution to the disunion between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics. The only real solution is honest dialogue based on mutual respect and an effort to find ways to overcome our differences, not ignoring them the way that the Melkite proposal of 1991 proposes. I believe that you will find that Rome was just as opposed to the Melkite proposal as the Eastern Orthodox were. The Melkite proposal of 1991 actually shows great disrespect for both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I have too much respect for the Catholic Church to accept the Melkite proposal. I also strongly support dialogue to try to reach the doctrinal agreement between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism that would make the restoration of Communion possible.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

Just because a group of Eastern Catholics took for themselves the title given to Chalcedonians does not mean that they are the legitimate heirs to the real Melkite Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The group that now calls itself Melkite began in 1724 when some people left the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and went into Communion with Rome.

In case you didn’t notice I just repeated what you said about Chalcedonian split and swapped the roles. To talk about the group that now calls itself Melkite as having begun in 1724 misses the fundamental point. This group of people existed within a particular church; this group of made a decision to enter into communion with Rome. They are heirs to the earlier tradition. Whether they are legitimate or not is a point of view.

I want to ask you a question. What do the Melkites believe about the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council? Give me an honest answer. You cannot accept the doctrinal decisions of the 1st Vatican Council and honestly call yourself Eastern Orthodox. If the Melkites do not accept the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council why are they in Communion with Rome which does?

I cannot speak for Melkites, but would ask you this: what has that to do with 1724. To talk about Vatican I as the deal breaker raises the questions about the centuries before it. There always seems to be a reason for holding onto schism. Even azymes,

Speaking for myself I would say that it is difficulty in the abstract, and without the follow-up in Vatican II to properly interpret Vatican I. I have made the point may times that the supremacy as actually exercised by Rome is far less than that of the EP over history. So I wonder if the problem is more theoretical than real.

Moreover, the EOs have not really been asked to submit to Vatican I as far as I know. The CC holds that there is a sufficiency of doctrinal agreement, informed by first millennium standards, to allow communion of EOs (and OOs) in Catholic churches. Suppose the EOs were to agree and allow intercommunion. How would that bind them to any formulation of any council that they do not already adhere to? How would that impact in any way their administration?

The Melkite proposal of 1991 that we ignore the very real doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and simply declare ourselves in Communion with each other before we have reached doctrinal agreement is not a solution to the disunion between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

Nope. There was no call to ignore anything. Just to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of doctrinal agreement, informed by first millennium standards, to allow communion. And I think that this started in the 1970s, then later re-emerged in the mid 90’s. I think it wrong to call the proposal disrespectful. I think that it faces the reality that we as people comprise and must act as the body of Christ, and put aside legalism.

 

[frjohnmorris]

In case you didn’t notice I just repeated what you said about Chalcedonian split and swapped the roles. To talk about the group that now calls itself Melkite as having begun in 1724 misses the fundamental point. This group of people existed within a particular church; this group of made a decision to enter into communion with Rome. They are heirs to the earlier tradition. Whether they are legitimate or not is a point of view.

I cannot speak for Melkites, but would ask you this: what has that to do with 1724. To talk about Vatican I as the deal breaker raises the questions about the centuries before it. There always seems to be a reason for holding onto schism. Even azymes,

Speaking for myself I would say that it is difficulty in the abstract, and without the follow-up in Vatican II to properly interpret Vatican I. I have made the point may times that the supremacy as actually exercised by Rome is far less than that of the EP over history. So I wonder if the problem is more theoretical than real.

Moreover, the EOs have not really been asked to submit to Vatican I as far as I know. The CC holds that there is a sufficiency of doctrinal agreement, informed by first millennium standards, to allow communion of EOs (and OOs) in Catholic churches. Suppose the EOs were to agree and allow intercommunion. How would that bind them to any formulation of any council that they do not already adhere to? How would that impact in any way their administration?

Nope. There was no call to ignore anything. Just to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of doctrinal agreement, informed by first millennium standards, to allow communion. And I think that this started in the 1970s, then later re-emerged in the mid 90’s. I think it wrong to call the proposal disrespectful. I think that it faces the reality that we as people comprise and must act as the body of Christ, and put aside legalism.

I recognize that the Melkites have always been the least Latinized of the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, you cannot ignore the fact that in 1724 the Melkites left the Eastern Orthodox Church by rejecting Communion with Eastern Orthodoxy in favor of Communion with Rome.
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches disagree on important aspects of the position of Rome before 1054. In order to restore Communion, we would have to resolve these differences. Modern Catholics tend to read Vatican 1 back into the early history of the Church. We believe that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor, but not of jurisdiction and that all Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
Today the Ecumenical Patriarch has no real authority except for influence outside of his own Patriarchate. Even that influence is very limited.
One principle of Orthodox ecumenical doctrine is that the Protestant concept of intercommunion without complete doctrinal agreement is unacceptable. To Eastern Orthodox Communion is a manifestation of union. If we do not agree on fundamental doctrine, we are not really united.
You did not give me a direct answer to my question. If you really understood Eastern Orthodox theology, you would see the point of my arguments. The doctrine of Vatican I is profoundly relevant. Vatican 1 is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. From an Eastern Orthodox point of view that means that those in Communion with Rome also accept the doctrines proclaimed at the 1st Vatican Council. If you really understood Eastern Orthodox theology you would know that.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

**Adherence to the debate guidelines is necessary for further participation in this thread. **Infractions and suspensions will be offered to those who do not strictly adhere to the forum rules.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

Historically, the term Uniate was employed relatively freely by the Catholic Churches, including those of the East and Orient, as well as by the Orthodox Churches.

During a period in the 20th century, it took on a pejorative nature when it was perceived as being used sneeringly by some Orthodox (principally those of the Eastern, rather than the Oriental, Churches). As a result, the Eastern and Oriental Catholics ceased using the term in reference to themselves, particularly in America, where the majority of CAF’s posters reside.

In recent history, there has been some increase in the use of the term by Rome itself and by some Eastern and Oriental Catholics. The subject has been much discussed here in the past, expressing that a large segment of CAF’s Eastern and Oriental Catholics continue to view the term to be an offensive pejorative. As such, the abiding guideline was a ban of the term uniate, along with heretic and schismatic (and their derivative forms), when they are used in a manner that smacks of them being confrontational, contemptuous, disparaging, inciteful, insulting, taunting, or worse.

Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters.

** Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.**

Please review our Charity guidelines first, and if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact a forum moderator.

Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism
No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.

• You said…
• You need to…
• You don’t get it.
• Why don’t you…
• If only you…
• It is you who…
• You are wrong.
• You misunderstood.
• I’m not the one who…
• Some people here…

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise.

• You need to…
• Why don’t you…
• If you’d only…
• Those of us who have…

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible.
Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words that instigate or inflame the other side.

Use bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases very sparingly.

No hyperbole and no sarcasm in a debate.

• This conversation always…
• Every single time this comes up…
• Aren’t you a saint?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Note from Moderator:

**Adherence to the debate guidelines is necessary for further participation in this thread. **Infractions and suspensions will be offered to those who do not strictly adhere to the forum rules.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

I do not know why you sent this to me. There must be some mistake. There was nothing in my post #93 that was in any way a violation of your guidelines.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I do not know why you sent this to me. There must be some mistake. There was nothing in my post #93 that was in any way a violation of your guidelines.

Fr. John W. Morris

I assumed that it wasn’t directed at any specific person.

And, of course, Merry Christmas.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I assumed that it wasn’t directed at any specific person.

And, of course, Merry Christmas.

Thanks for the clarification, because I have bent over backwards to avoid violating the rules of this site or deliberately offending Catholics. However, if we are ever able to overcome our differences, we must be free to express ourselves honestly. On this particular issue, I am not sure that my opinion is closer to that of Rome than the Melkite proposal of 1991, which is essentially to ignore our differences and enter into Communion any way. I think that Rome would agree with me that we must resolve our doctrinal differences before we enter into Communion. The 1991 Melkite position is not unlike Protestant ecumenism which sees Communion as a way towards union, not the final result of real union. What the Protestants have done with all their intercommunion agreements was to make doctrine unimportant. I do not think that either the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholics believe that doctrine is unimportant. The best example of this kind of lowest denominator ecumenism was a joint celebration of Communion between the Methodists and the Episcopalians in Jackson, Mississippi a few years ago. The Methodist and Episcopal Bishop stood together at the Altar but they had two chalices, one with wine for the Episcopalians and another with grape juice for the Methodists.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

The 1991 Melkite position is not unlike Protestant ecumenism which sees Communion as a way towards union, not the final result of real union.

Based on past conversations I’ve had, I know that you’re-like-protestants is often the ultimate insult, so to speak … but I guess I don’t have any reason to think that you mean it that way…

… So yes, I can say that I see a *certain *amount of similarity (not with, say, the CoE or ELCA, but maybe with the thinking of a group like the LCMS(?) vis-a-vis intercommunion).

 

[dzheremi]

The thing is that Orthodox will never agree to having a “sufficient level of agreement” or whatever be the standard by which we determine who to be in communion with, so things like this Melkite proposal just fall flat. There can be pastoral agreements, there can be other types of cooperation in Christian love and charity, but full and open communion? You need full and complete agreement on Orthodox terms for that to happen.