A glimpse at our Eastern & Western Christian Churches
- Christian History
- 72 Replies
Your first statement is clearly not true. I have copied the 4 provisions of the letter agreement below. There is no "...full access to the sacraments...." 6. applies only if there are both bishops present for a funeral, baptism, or matrimony, and merely says who presides. 7. prohibits mixed bishops concelebrating Divine Liturgy, while 8. extends that to priests.
The tricky one is 9. where a priest from one can celebrate services including Divine Liturgy and matrimony, for the other, if there is no priest of the other. I have some questions, but clearly yes there is literally communion between them. I still relate this as an accommodation between two churches in a hostile land. If there is a requirement that there is a church building - a physical church - with no priest, but with a community, that is even more support that this is an accommodation.
I do not know what happens in practice, but the letter is written so as to bar "...the laity can attend either church (meaning for communion)...". The letter gives only one situation where that is allowed.
Letter provisions:
6. If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.
7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
8. What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
9. In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
Let me first reiterate that in correcting the above, I am not seeking to continue the debate about whether or not the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox are or are not in a state of limited inter-communion, with you, as I believe that you and I will never be able to agree on that. However, I do believe you have mischaracterized the agreement and what it allows and does not allow, based on a misreading. I will therefore post the numbered provisions and clarify these points, while having a different overall interpretation concerning what they mean in the aggregate for the two ancient Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch:
Firstly, before we begin, it must be stressed that all provisions apply to each church, mutually. Nothing in the letter contradicts the idea that what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
Now, here are the numbered Articles of the Agreement:
- We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.
- The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.
- Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.
- Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arises.
- Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
- If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.
- The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
- What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
- In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
- If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.
- If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.
- Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.
- Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
- Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.
We ask God's help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.
Firstly, the argument that concelebration is prohibited is not supported by the text. Article 7 does not prohibit concelebration between bishops of either churches, it merely clarifies that whereas Article 6 requires that in Baptisms and Funerals concelebrated by bishops of both churches will have the bishop from the church whose member is being baptized or who has reposed preside, no such restriction exists on concelebrations of the Divine Liturgy.
Article 11 furthermore allows a bishop from one church to concelebrate with a priest from another, the bishop will preside over the service. This proceeds bishops “presiding from the throne” as inactive participants, but rather requires that the bishop personally lead the worship, rather than the priest, even if it is in the parish of that priest.
Article 10 ensures that if a priest from each church is available and the two can share a church, the liturgy will still be celebrated according to both liturgical rites; this is in accord with the preface and also Article 1, since it was specifically the goal of this agreement was “All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.” Obviously, this would not happen if churches did not celebrate both the Byzantine Rite and the West Syriac RIte liturgies when they had the resources, in the form of priests from each church, to do so. It would be a disaster if in such a case, the clergy decided to only celebrate one rite or the other, perhaps because one of the priests was elderly, or one of the congregations was larger, indeed, without this rule it seems likely that parishes in Lebanon and Syria would tend to be dominated by the Byzantine Rite, while those in Turkey and Iraq would be dominated by the West Syriac Rite. And that would be unfortunate. Specifically, Damascus, Beirut and Latakia would likely become Byzantine Rite cities, and Tikrit, Mosul and Baghdad would become West Syriac Rite cities.
Article 9 on the other hand ensures that when only one priest is available, that he is able to serve the faithful from both churches, in whatever rite he has been trained in. And this has doubtless been of substantial benefit, particularly for Antiochian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox traveling in areas where one church has little or no presence. For example, Syrian, Lebanese and Turkish expats working in parts of Iraq where the dominant Christian churches are the Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic, would still have full access to the sacraments. And likewise, Syrians traveling in parts of Lebanon and Syria, for example, Maaloula, where there are only Antiochian Orthodox churches, would still have full access to the sacraments.* But it does not contain any language that would prohibit the faithful of either church from receiving the sacraments from either church elsewhere.
Finally, there is no provision prohibiting members of either church from receiving sacraments at the parish of another, insofar as articles 1, 2 and 3 recognize each church as fully valid and legitimate, require that the heritage of each church and their respective Fathers and history be integrated into the educational programs of both churches, so an Antiochian will learn about Syriac Orthodox fathers and vice versa, and under Article 3, conversions between the churches are prohibited, and furthermore, article 13 allows members from either church to serve as godparents, or as witnesses at marriages.
Article 9 merely requires that priests in localities where their church is the only one serve members of both churches and maintain independent records (perhaps AOCNA priests were reticent about having to deal with this, and combined with a fear of backlash from other churches in North America, and the risk of this interfering with efforts to resolve the problem of multiple overlapping jurisdictions, this is why AOCNA apparently, at least according to some sources, does not participate in this agreement, but as an autonomous church, it would be a violation of its autonomy to force it into doing so.
The same principle of autonomy is what allows the Church of Sinai, an autonomous church under the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to allow Coptic Orthodox pilgrims to partake of the Eucharist at that important holy site, which is something that within the tense atmosphere of rivalry between the Greek, Armenian and Latin groups that control jointly several places of pilgrimage in the Holy Land, such as the Holy Sepulchre, according to the sometimes absurd strictures of the Muslim-imposed Status Quo Agreement, which features such spectacles as the legendary “immovable ladder”, would unfortunately be impossible for the time being (indeed even in the event of EO-OO reunion, it might not be possible to fully implement this reunion at the Holy Sepulchre due to the Status Quo agreement due to various issues of church politics).
Now, to reiterate, none of this seeks to challenge your views about the relationship between the two churches, on which we agree to disagree. Rather, I am seeking to address what I believe was a misinterpretation of the effect of the numbered articles of the Ecumenical Agreement on your part. I should note I also disagree with a view I seem to recall you expressing at one point, that the provisions expressed in the non-numbered paragraphs are not relevant to the meaning of the article.
*To use a secular example, It’s a bit like the code-sharing agreements between major airlines, for example, between American Airlines, British Airways, Qantas, and Alaska Airlines, or between Air Canada, United Air Lines, Lufthansa, and Air New Zealand, or between Delta, Air France, KLM and Virgin Atlantic, that allow passengers to seamlessly travel between destinations on each airline’s network. Or in prior decades, the through-train services such as the California Zephyr, which connected Chicago to San Francisco via the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, the Denver and Rio Grande Western and the Western Pacific, or the City of Los Angeles, which connected Los Angeles to Chicago via the Southern Pacific, Union Pacific and the Chicago & Northwestern Rwy.
Upvote
0
