H
Hesychios
Guest
Except that the union you have today is really nothing like the intercommunion prior to 1054AD.
So it is a new thing, not a return to anything.
Michael
- Status
So it is a new thing, not a return to anything.
Michael
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
A matter of opinion that has been discussed ad nauseam and not worth discussing here.
If someone feels a call to the Catholic Church then one should support that persons choice, just I am sure you would say that we should support the decision of someone who wishes to 'dox.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello brother David,
I don’t think it is discussed enough. Objective history really does not support the modern Papacy or the operating relationship the Eastern churches under the Pope have with Rome.
So, we are free to discuss the subject as a theoretical prospect, and hopefully intelligently.
To me the term “return to union with Rome” is a worn out - dog tired misrepresentation of the facts.
The Apostolic Eastern Churches under Christ are autocephalic and always have been. The connection between churches has always been a shared theology and communion, nothing more or less.
The eastern particular churches under the Pope are not autocephalic. In the early church the local synods were self governing to the point that even in the west they were capable of choosing their own bishops and calling their own local councils for centuries.
Saint Irenaeus and Saint Augustine were both elected to their offices by the local diocese {!}, yet they lived hundreds of years apart and hundreds of miles from one another. Likewise in the east, it was the same everywhere from Spain to India. The modern Papal prerogative of appointing bishops, erecting dioceses and dominating Councils did not exist outside of central Italy for many centuries.
So if we are going to be honest about it going from Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism is in no way a return to the pre-schism church. It is actually a move to a new type of association and the formula under which these churches were bound to Rome has been repudiated since Balamand. It seems to be a poor model for reconciliation between us, it has yet to show promise of restoring the ancient church to unity.
By trading off individuals one way or the other we merely move a person from one side of the schism to another side. It doesn’t “heal” anything and does not improve the situation one bit. We are each separated FROM EACH OTHER.
The Patriarchate of Rome is as separated from the other four ancient Patriarchates as they in turn are separated from Rome. Everybody loses, we are all schismatics.
Although Popes of the past condemned Orthodox, today your own church admits that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, which is a striking thought in itself. You and I know that there is only one eternal heavenly liturgy, the sacrifice of the Mass is not ever recelebrated, it is a cosmic eternal event. So if our churches each have a valid Eucharist the implications for us are staggering. From that point of view theoretically one’s prospects for salvation are equally good in either church.
What we need to do is get back to that first millenum model church, drop the later dogmatic pronouncements that divide us and get on with the business of being a united Gospel witness to this fallen culture.
It’s not so hard, it is definitely worth a discussion or two.
Pax et Bonum*
Michael*
And this is, of course, your opinion.
I don’t think it is discussed enough. Objective history really does not support the modern Papacy or the operating relationship the Eastern churches under the Pope have with Rome.
I don’t have a problem with you supporting such a persons choice. But the OP was a hypothetical question, since he is already a Catholic.
So, we are free to discuss the subject as a theoretical prospect, and hopefully intelligently.
To me the term “return to union with Rome” is a worn out - dog tired misrepresentation of the facts.
The Apostolic Eastern Churches under Christ are autocephalic and always have been. The connection between churches has always been a shared theology and communion, nothing more or less.
The eastern particular churches under the Pope are not autocephalic. In the early church the local synods were self governing to the point that even in the west they were capable of choosing their own bishops and calling their own local councils for centuries.
Saint Irenaeus and Saint Augustine were both elected to their offices by the local diocese {!}, yet they lived hundreds of years apart and hundreds of miles from one another. Likewise in the east, it was the same everywhere from Spain to India. The modern Papal prerogative of appointing bishops, erecting dioceses and dominating Councils did not exist outside of central Italy for many centuries.
So if we are going to be honest about it going from Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism is in no way a return to the pre-schism church. It is actually a move to a new type of association and the formula under which these churches were bound to Rome has been repudiated since Balamand. It seems to be a poor model for reconciliation between us, it has yet to show promise of restoring the ancient church to unity.
By trading off individuals one way or the other we merely move a person from one side of the schism to another side. It doesn’t “heal” anything and does not improve the situation one bit. We are each separated FROM EACH OTHER.
The Patriarchate of Rome is as separated from the other four ancient Patriarchates as they in turn are separated from Rome. Everybody loses, we are all schismatics.
Although Popes of the past condemned Orthodox, today your own church admits that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, which is a striking thought in itself. You and I know that there is only one eternal heavenly liturgy, the sacrifice of the Mass is not ever recelebrated, it is a cosmic eternal event. So if our churches each have a valid Eucharist the implications for us are staggering. From that point of view theoretically one’s prospects for salvation are equally good in either church.
What we need to do is get back to that first millenum model church, drop the later dogmatic pronouncements that divide us and get on with the business of being a united Gospel witness to this fallen culture.
It’s not so hard, it is definitely worth a discussion or two.
Pax et Bonum*
Michael*
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think you’d have an equally hard time convincing Catholics or Orthodox of that.
D
dvdjs
Guest
First, it is historically inaccurate to say that the [Orthodox] Apostolic Eastern Churches have always been autocephalic. It is not the case even on paper, and by no stretch of the imagination is it the case in practice. It is tiresome to hear this nonsense from Orthodox who don’t know better. But I think you do know better.
Second, why the emphasis on Apostolic Eastern Churches on the one hand, then any particular Eastern Church in communion with Rome. Rome may be overly centralized in its dealings with Uzhhorod or L’viv, but wasn’t the EP? And, during the Ottoman era, the supremacy of the EP arguably went far beyond anything undertaken by Rome.
To return to the past, is not really possible in the strict sense, so this idea is moot. Are these associations “new”? Surely the clever can find criteria and norms to argue either side, so it is again moot. A more significant question is this: Have these associations been repudiated via the Balamand agreement? You may be the only Orthodox who cites Balamand as though it had any standing whatsoever. Even so, it a grossly tendentious reading to impy that our association with Rome has been repudiated. The text is clear: the missionary apostolate and proselytization that some have, however justly or unjustly, associated with our Churches - those activities are rejected. Balamand requires a respect for our Churches and their right to exist.
Movement of individuals may be inevitable. If churches actually accept the right of other churches to exist, then they must accept such movement. Graciousness in the face of such movements could in fact help to heal schism, at least to the extent that it initiates better mutual respect, together with respect for individuals as individuals rather than property.
Oh please. This idea of four-against-one can be repeated as often as you like. But that won’t change the fact that history, and present reality, are not accurately captured by it.
What is actually needed is not a plan with preconditions. What is needed is mutual respect, which just might lead to love, to heartache, and even to profound shame over separation. What is needed is compunction that transcends a plan for vindication.
R
rad
Guest
"Once N. Pavlovich asked the Elder: “Is it possible to hope for the unification of the churches?”
He replied, “No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church.”
“Wisdom has built herself a house with seven pillars. Orthodoxy has these seven pillars. But God’s wisdom has other dwellings- they may have six pillars or fewer, and accordingly a lesser measure of grace.” Saint Nektary of Optina
Source: Elder Nektary of Optina by I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello dvdjs,
I am enjoying the discussion with you.
Those who say otherwise usually don’t know any better, but I think you do.
Cyprus is an excellent case in point. The Council of Ephesus recognized it’s autocephaly in 431AD, ACCORDING TO THE CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS AND ANCIENT CUSTOM. Which is actually citing even older practice as precedent!
It then went on to warn all bishops not to take possession of other provinces, and if they have done so, to restore them.
*
"*The same principle will be observed for other dioceses and provinces everywhere. None of the reverent bishops is to take possession of another province which has not been under his authority from the first or under that of his predecessors.
Any one who has thus seized upon and subjected a province is to restore it, lest the canons of the fathers be transgressed and the arrogance of secular power effect an entry through the cover of priestly office.
We must avoid bit by bit destroying the freedom which our lord Jesus Christ the liberator of all people, gave us through his own blood. It is therefore the pleasure of the holy and ecumenical synod to secure intact and inviolate the rights belonging to each province from the first, according to the custom which has been in force from of old. Each metropolitan has the right to take a copy of the proceedings for his own security."
None of this prevented the crusaders from taking over the Church of Cyprus under Guy De Lusignan of course. Or prevented the Ecumenical Patriarchate from doing likewise under the Rum Millet.
But the Church of Cyprus is autocephalic today precisely because of those ancient guarantees by the Fathers of the Church in the Canons of 431AD. That is how it is with the church, how it must be. Later innovations, no matter how well established, are to be rejected in favor of the earlier sanctioned position when possible. The EP does not have those overreaching powers today because it was never really entitled to them.
The EP no longer has those powers, since they are not legitimate and are not sanctioned by Canon Law. As much as Roman Catholics would wish to think of the EP as an Eastern Pope he is not and never had a right to make a claim, and those historical episodes, abuses of the church, are part of the past.
And we do claim to be the church of the Apostles, do we not? Is that not what we proclaim to Protestant inquirers…the we are the Church established by Jesus Christ through the Apostles, and we teach the absolute fullness of the Faith?
{continued below}
I am enjoying the discussion with you.
That is the normal ecclesiology of the church from the beginning, and after every instance of interruption due to outside forces (such as political ambitions of local princes, infidel conquerors or crusaders) the normal ecclesiology of the church has been restored in accordance with the Canons.
Those who say otherwise usually don’t know any better, but I think you do.
Cyprus is an excellent case in point. The Council of Ephesus recognized it’s autocephaly in 431AD, ACCORDING TO THE CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS AND ANCIENT CUSTOM. Which is actually citing even older practice as precedent!
It then went on to warn all bishops not to take possession of other provinces, and if they have done so, to restore them.
*
"*The same principle will be observed for other dioceses and provinces everywhere. None of the reverent bishops is to take possession of another province which has not been under his authority from the first or under that of his predecessors.
Any one who has thus seized upon and subjected a province is to restore it, lest the canons of the fathers be transgressed and the arrogance of secular power effect an entry through the cover of priestly office.
We must avoid bit by bit destroying the freedom which our lord Jesus Christ the liberator of all people, gave us through his own blood. It is therefore the pleasure of the holy and ecumenical synod to secure intact and inviolate the rights belonging to each province from the first, according to the custom which has been in force from of old. Each metropolitan has the right to take a copy of the proceedings for his own security."
None of this prevented the crusaders from taking over the Church of Cyprus under Guy De Lusignan of course. Or prevented the Ecumenical Patriarchate from doing likewise under the Rum Millet.
But the Church of Cyprus is autocephalic today precisely because of those ancient guarantees by the Fathers of the Church in the Canons of 431AD. That is how it is with the church, how it must be. Later innovations, no matter how well established, are to be rejected in favor of the earlier sanctioned position when possible. The EP does not have those overreaching powers today because it was never really entitled to them.
What the Ecumenical Patriachate did under the duress of tyrants is not justification for present practices. The Millet system was imposed upon the land by an alien conqueror. It does not exist today.
The EP no longer has those powers, since they are not legitimate and are not sanctioned by Canon Law. As much as Roman Catholics would wish to think of the EP as an Eastern Pope he is not and never had a right to make a claim, and those historical episodes, abuses of the church, are part of the past.
The Faith is timeless.
And we do claim to be the church of the Apostles, do we not? Is that not what we proclaim to Protestant inquirers…the we are the Church established by Jesus Christ through the Apostles, and we teach the absolute fullness of the Faith?
Are you thinking I’m clever?..
{continued below}
H
Hesychios
Guest
{continued from above}
I question it…as it stands…as a model for church unity. It has proven itself inadequate for that purpose and the methods used to achieve it have been repudiated by the Papacy’s representatives at Balamand, which I see as a positive development.
It is true other Orthodox repudiate Balamand most primarily because it recognizes your churches rights to exist. I see their existence as an historical fact, so there is no point in arguing about it. (I would go so far as to encourage autocephaly for them while maintaining communion with the See at Rome!)
My point is, none of these attempts (the past methods condemned at Balamand, and the churches that derive from them) have served to unify Christianity, they have merely shattered and divided local faith communities, often by applying great political pressure or by taking advantage of internal disputes that should have been addressed locally without interference.
What the Papacy did was alienate it’s friends, the other churches of the Faith, through a series of hostile acts.
The explanation modern Roman Catholics are told is that the East was guilty of pride and “left obedience” to the Pope, an anachronistic myth.
But regardless of what I think personally, to Holy Orthodoxy unity in Truth is of paramount importance, and we still have the little matter of the extra doctrines.
From Apostolic times a precondition for sharing the Eucharist was unity of Faith and the Orthodox churches have simply not abandoned that principle in the nearly 2000 years since the Pentecost event.
In thinking about it now, I guess it’s something like tough love.
Michael
I did not question your churches’ right to exist as a church.
I question it…as it stands…as a model for church unity. It has proven itself inadequate for that purpose and the methods used to achieve it have been repudiated by the Papacy’s representatives at Balamand, which I see as a positive development.
It is true other Orthodox repudiate Balamand most primarily because it recognizes your churches rights to exist. I see their existence as an historical fact, so there is no point in arguing about it. (I would go so far as to encourage autocephaly for them while maintaining communion with the See at Rome!)
My point is, none of these attempts (the past methods condemned at Balamand, and the churches that derive from them) have served to unify Christianity, they have merely shattered and divided local faith communities, often by applying great political pressure or by taking advantage of internal disputes that should have been addressed locally without interference.
I carry no argument against your statement here.
It still should be adequately explained, and the Latin polemic of some kind of conspiracy, or exercise of pride of the part of so many varied individuals does not explain it. It reminds me of the individual that has no friends and has to wonder what is wrong with all of them, yet refuses to look in the mirror.
What the Papacy did was alienate it’s friends, the other churches of the Faith, through a series of hostile acts.
The explanation modern Roman Catholics are told is that the East was guilty of pride and “left obedience” to the Pope, an anachronistic myth.
Nice words, even poetic, and I am personally sympathetic to your sentiments so well expressed.
But regardless of what I think personally, to Holy Orthodoxy unity in Truth is of paramount importance, and we still have the little matter of the extra doctrines.
From Apostolic times a precondition for sharing the Eucharist was unity of Faith and the Orthodox churches have simply not abandoned that principle in the nearly 2000 years since the Pentecost event.
In thinking about it now, I guess it’s something like tough love.
Michael
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think you push the meaning of “normal” beyond reasonable limits. The ecclesiology of the Church has always been highly adaptive and economical in the interests of the kingdom. God only knows what adaptations and developments are the are responsive to Holy Spirit, and which are aberrations. But economical applications of canons is the norm of tradition; yearning for strict application is mere traditionalism.
The key to this claim is the continuity of our tradition and its continually enlivening impact, guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Not our mimicry of governance, or worship, etc. as conducted in the time of the Apostles.
D
dvdjs
Guest
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Originally Posted by Hesychios
By trading off individuals one way or the other we merely move a person from one side of the schism to another side. It doesn’t “heal” anything and does not improve the situation one bit. We are each separated FROM EACH OTHER.
By trading off individuals one way or the other we merely move a person from one side of the schism to another side. It doesn’t “heal” anything and does not improve the situation one bit. We are each separated FROM EACH OTHER.
I don’t think so. I can think of several authors, on both the Catholic and Orthodox sides, who say exactly that. Lauren Cleenewrck, in His Broken Body, which I am reading now, is one example.
R
rad
Guest
In my limited experience any Orthodox who decide to 'lic (is that the word that parallels 'dox?) never have any support from their priests or their family. There are serious results from such an action - depending on the knowlegde and culpability of the person 'lic-ing but of course God is infinitely compassionate and will still make every attempt to offer salvation.
Brother rad, I think the correct jargon is “crossing the Tiber.” If you want something shorter, I have sometimes heard the term “Poped.”
In any case, I think “Cath” would be a better verb than “lic.”
D
Diak
Guest
All of the Orthodox arguments against “uniatism” should be compared in the light of such historical developments as the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, as well as others such as Antioch that have ancient non-Constantinopolitan liturgical traditions that were supplanted by “uniate” hierarchs. Rome is certainly not the only one to have engaged in such activities.
Soloviev was quite convinced one could be in communion with Rome and not abandon Orthodoxy. I completely agree, in spite of the sometimes unfortunate and uncharitable actions of individual men.
Soloviev was quite convinced one could be in communion with Rome and not abandon Orthodoxy. I completely agree, in spite of the sometimes unfortunate and uncharitable actions of individual men.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Alexandria (named after a famous Macedonian) has always had a significant Greek population. While most Copts in Egypt rejected Chalcedon, most of the Greeks living in Egypt, who largely lived in the cities, accepted Chalcedon and became a minority. As to the difference between Constantinopolitan liturgical traditions and Greco-Egyptian traditions, I can’t say. What were the differences, might I ask? With the Greek diaspora in the 19th century, many Greeks came to parts of Africa.
As to Antioch, I don’t exactly see where you’re going with that. There are three Catholic bishops claiming to be Patriarch of that see, in addition to a Syriac Orthodox bishop and a Greek Orthodox bishop. They all have claims of legitimacy, some better than others.
One can be in communion with Rome and not abandon Orthodoxy, so long as Rome has not abandoned Orthodoxy.
D
Diak
Guest
Historically the Pope/Patriarch of Alexandria predates any establishment of a specifically Greek hierarchy long before Chalcedon. The etymology of pre-Christian places can be missaplied in numerous other locations as well. One can find these as far as Persian lands and we know how well Greek culture took on in there.
There simply was not an extant Greek hierarchy previous to the Imperial establishment of one after Chalcedon; to imply the Greeks already had some kind of parallel hierarchy doesn’t hold water historically.
One only has to look at the likes of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, and others as well as the rich monastic tradition to see that there was indeed an Alexandrian tradition uniquely established. One sees none of this theological development within the uniate Patriarchate of Alexandria after the establishment of the uniate Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Only after Chalcedon does one see the establishment of another Patriarchate parallel to the historic see of Alexandria of an entirely different liturgical tradition (there are significant differences between the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan liturgical usages). It was an attempt to create a parallel, Uniate hierarchy by order of the Phanar. Hesychios’ assertion that the Eastern Catholic Churches are the creation of a new reality in union with another Church most definitely here has a precedent.
As to Antioch, the Syriac patriarchate of Antioch most definitely holds the historical place of precedent; as with Alexandria another Constantinopolitan hierarchy was placed there in an attempt to create another Greek uniate hierarchy. It succeeded far better there than Alexandria for numerous reasons - even though Antioch isn’t named after a Macedonian.
My point stands - uniatistic movements are indeed historically well established within the Orthodox Churches.
D
Diak
Guest
There are essential differences between the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan traditions, from completely different anaphorae to the Divine Praises. Archimandrite Robert Taft has done some excellent work specifically in the development of the Divine Praises. Likewise to say there was no Greek influence in Alexandrian culture would be ludicrous - the use of Greek in the Coptic liturgy indeed is indicative of a great part of this influence.
There is most certainly a particular Alexandrian liturgical development (one can also mention cultural and linguistic as well as a distinct city of the Pentarchy) quite distinct from that of Constantinople. The great tradition of St. Mark even from Apostolic times, the flight of the Holy Family, the Fathers of Sketis and the Thebaid are very significant parts of the Alexandrian tradition that had little to do with Constantinople.
It was Alexandria, not Constantinople, that produced St. Athanasius and Cyril, the school of Origen amongst other great things. There was no need for another parallel hierarchy until the Phanar determined in league with the Emperor that one was needed after Chalcedon.
I have seen no credible evidence that prior to the insertion of the uniate Patriarchate of Alexandria with a purely Constantinopolitan liturgical usage (that was indeed different from that of Alexandria) that there was a significant movement of dissent amongst the Alexandrian population for a more specifically Greek-Byzantine form of worship prior to the establishment of the uniate Patriarchate of Alexandria.
The terrible persecution of the Copts by the Imperial government after the creation of the uniate hierarchy is also well documented and one of the sadder chapters of Christianity.
M
malphono
Guest
If I may, I’d like to ask for a clarification: when you speak of the “uniate Patriarchate of Alexandria,” exactly what are you referring to?
M
Madaglan
Guest
The Council of Chalcedon deposed the former Patriarch Dioscorus and installed Proterius as the new Patriarch of Alexandria. This was not an imperial decision so much as a decision of the Church through an Ecumenical Council. Non-Chalcedonian Christians murdered Proterius (who was seen as provoking violence against the opposition) and installed their own bishop as Patriarch, thereby creating a parallel jurisdiction, for better or for worse. From what I’ve read, the most prodigious number of ordinations and consecrations of bishops were conducted amongst the non-Chalcedonians (especially Jacobites), in their attempt to hold together in their faith.
I don’t understand your emphasis on there not being a parallel Greek hierarchy before Chalcedon. Whether the Patriarchs before Chalcedon were Greek, Coptic or Jewish in ethnicity/background matters little when compared with their faith: were they Orthodox Catholics?
The Desert Fathers and their traditions were influential outside Egypt, even before Chalcedon. The Christians who accepted Chalcedon did not reject St. Athanasius and St. Cyril. Any supposed absence of a “rich monastic tradition” amongst the Melkite Christians following the Council of Chalcedon could be explained by the fact that they became an unpopular minority in the land in which they lived. If we look at a minority Church (e.g. the Coptic Catholic Church in Egypt) we see the same absence of monastic life, but not due to any inherent defect.
Antioch wasn’t named after a Macedonian, but it was founded by one.
Antioch was not solely Syriac or non-Chalcedonian; there remained in Antioch Christians who supported Chalcedon.
D
Diak
Guest
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, which did not exist prior to its creation by order of the Emperor.
There was and is a native Patriarchate of Alexandria; instead of attempting to peacefully resolve the Alexandrian situation force was used resulting in a parallel uniate Patriarchate loyal to the Emperor, and horrific persecutions of the native Coptic Christians at the hands of the Byzantine Empire.
- Status