Because the Orthodox communions are all independent from one another (autocephalous) leaves the door open for their sister church’s who maintain the same liturgies from Orthodoxy who have returned to communion with the Pope.
No it doesn’t. They’re not still Orthodox once they leave the communion just because they supposedly take their liturgies with them. Once you’re out, you’re out, and even a liturgy that is performed exactly as it would have been when they were still in union with Orthodoxy doesn’t make their
faith Orthodox.
For example; Nestorian, Monophysites, Monothelite Church’s who mirror the Orthodox church liturgies, have returned to communion with the Pope. Such as the Armenians, Melkites, Maronites, some Malabar christians with their Syriac liturgy, Chaldean Church. Iam trying my best to keep this short.
There has never been (in either the RC communion or the Orthodox communion) any organized “monophysite” Church. Maronites have been accused historically of favoring monothelitism, but I bet you’d get an ear full from them about applying that derogatory label to them now. Ditto the Nestorians regarding their Nestorianism (this one I’m less convinced of their pleas, as they have not anathematized Nestorius and continue to venerate him, but whatever…I’m not in communion with them anyway). So most of this is strikes me as pretty antiquated and weird.
The Great Gallican Church that holds to the Orthodox Byzantine Liturgy never left communion with the Pope.
Again, liturgical forms are not in and of themselves Orthodox. This is an incredibly weird way to look at Orthodoxy.
The only thing that separate these Eastern Catholic rite church’s from Orthodox church’s is that they maintain communion with the Pope, while still holding to their Orthodox faith. This was one of the main focuses of Vatican II.
Sure, that is how Rome would like to present it, but when you make the claim that there are Orthodox who never left communion with Rome, and actual Orthodox people disagree, then isn’t your claim kind of…well, wrong? We’re not in communion because you say we are. We’re in communion when
our hierarchs say we are, and they say the exact opposite.
My comment reflected the thought of “Rites” that mirror Orthodox rites, but have come into communion with the Pope.
Yeah, but that’s nonsensical, as I’ve already explained. I mean, if I go to liturgy every week and participate in it while internally holding some other faith than Orthodoxy, it does me no good. You have to
believe in Orthodoxy to actually be Orthodox, not just go to a specific building for a few hours every week.
If you are subjecting my comments to the negative grounds regarding communion with the pope subjects the Eastern (orthodox) rite Catholics to change to the Latin rite, you totally miss the popes and councils teachings on ecumenism.
I’m subjecting your comments to logic. You can’t say you are in communion with someone who won’t commune you. They have to admit you first, and none of our churches actually do. (And, as Peter J points out, the very limited circumstances in which you find any other activity going on are not enough to make the claim that we are somehow in communion. We are not.)
Those Orthodox church’s whom we now call Eastern Rite Catholics took the time to communicate their differences with the Popes and left in communion holding to their Orthodox faith and full rites.
They’re
not Orthodox churches, though. That’s the whole point. If they were, members in them would be welcome to commune in their corresponding (actual) Orthodox churches, and they are not. Why are they not? Because they no longer share the Orthodox faith.
Sadly some of these fell out of communion with their own sister church’s for returning to communion with the chair of Peter.
From what I can see, all of them did that. Every single Eastern Catholic Church, with the possible exception of the Italo-Albanians and the Maronites, represents a schism from a preexisting Orthodox Church. As in, an event that we can actually place at a specific date in time (many Catholic websites keep such lists, except they say that this is when communion was “reestablished”, as is reasonable to claim in light of their ecclesiology).
I hope this helps with little info, I can give.
Well there’s not really anything there (at least not how I envisioned an answer to my question), but thank you for giving your opinion of things. I don’t really understand it, and its build on a very strange idea of what Orthodoxy is that I do not share, but I appreciate that you went into detail regarding what you meant by the claim that some EO never broke communion with Rome.
) is because we are all of the western Church. Orthodoxy, for various historical and geographic reasons, have always been sort of off the radar.
