A Reuniting?

[Adammi]

I know that this has been discussed here countless times, but I'm starting it again anyways, LOL.
When I was in the process of converting to Roman Catholicism, I knew little about Orthodoxy, little about the schism between the 2 churches, and little about what the Church was like prior to the schism when the RC and EO were one. The RC is obviously making it just fine without the EO and I guess acts like not much of anything happened. Now, upon looking into Orthodoxy, I see so much more about those issues, and most importantly, how sad it really is that this schism happened.
Will the RC ever come home? If ever it does, imagine what it will be like.

[eoe]

I can see the OO coming back way before Rome. Who knows what the next Pope might be like tho.

[Adammi]

Question, so Eastern Rite Catholics have patriarchs of their rites. Are these patriarchs meant to replace the Orthodox patriarchs? And do the Western Rite Orthodox churches have a patriarch?

[eoe]

Question, so Eastern Rite Catholics have patriarchs of their rites.
Just one. The Pope.
And do the Western Rite Orthodox churches have a patriarch?
Yes. The WR EO are antiochian I think.

Click the pic

http://www.antiochian.org/assets/asset.php?type=image&id=307 (http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/)

[Adammi]

Ok, so no, the Western Rite Orthodox churches don't have their own patriarch as the Eastern Rite Catholics do?

[eoe]

Ok, so no, the Western Rite Orthodox churches don't have their own patriarch as the Eastern Rite Catholics do?
erm...

Eastern Rite Catholics are Roman Catholics. They report to the pope.
The Western Rite Orthodox are just the opposite and are under the Antiocian patriarch. Does that make more sense?

[Ilian]

Question, so Eastern Rite Catholics have patriarchs of their rites. Are these patriarchs meant to replace the Orthodox patriarchs?

At the time of the formation of the Unias, yes they were meant to supplant existing Orthodox patriarchates. Since the warming of relations between the churches however, they are not. The RCC has also officially renounced this model as a means of achieving reconciliation with Orthodoxy and has pledged not to proselytize among Orthodox believers.

Also, not all Eastern Catholic groups have Patriarchates. Some have major archbishops like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (though they would dearly love to get a patriarchate), and some are actually direct dependencies of Rome like the diocese of Mukachiv for the Rusyns in present day Ukraine. In addition, the existing Eastern Catholic Patriarchates do not have oversight of their overseas flock. It is currently not something Rome allows, so for instance the Melkite diocese in this country is a direct dependency of Rome and does not fall under the Omophorion of the Melkite Patriarch.

Too much information? Probably.

And do the Western Rite Orthodox churches have a patriarch?

No, they don’t have their own hierarchy at all. Nor are the envisioned are purposed as distinct churches, they are liturgical rites.

The issues with reconciliation mostly come down to the exercise of primacy in the church (i.e. governance) and what do you do about dogma defined by one church without the participation of the other. The first issue is actually really tied in to the second as far as relations go between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In my opinion the difficulty to resolve the differences is pretty much just as great between the Roman Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox however.

[Shawners]

eoe,
you mentioned the OO coming back first.
Is that the Oriental Orthodox ?
If it is , I never new they weren't part of the EO.Whats the storey (readers digest version)..Thanx
...........In Christ, Shawners

[Lotar]

eoe,
you mentioned the OO coming back first.
Is that the Oriental Orthodox ?
If it is , I never new they weren't part of the EO.Whats the storey (readers digest version)..Thanx
...........In Christ, Shawners

The OO did not accept the 4th ecumenical council, and broke off from the Church.

[eoe]

The OO broke off at the council of Chalcedon because of the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. It is a huge mess and quite possibly a matter of semantics.


Also.. about the WR - I could be wildly inaccurate and I am not really sure tha I understand the question. I thought that the WR EO were under Antioch. I did not know that the ER RC had patriarchs. Sounds silly for them to exist.

[Lotar]

erm...

Eastern Rite Catholics are Roman Catholics. They report to the pope.

They have patriarches, but they are considered to be under the authority of the Pope.



The Western Rite Orthodox are just the opposite and are under the Antiocian patriarch. Does that make more sense?


His question is if there is a patriarch for the western rite specifically, which there is not. Perhaps if one day there is a certain geological area becomes perdominantly western rite, but not now.

There are also western rite parishes under ROCOR and the Patriarch of Moscow.

[Mary of Bethany]

The OO broke off at the council of Chalcedon because of the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. It is a huge mess and quite possibly a matter of semantics.


Also.. about the WR - I could be wildly inaccurate and I am not really sure tha I understand the question. I thought that the WR EO were under Antioch. I did not know that the ER RC had patriarchs. Sounds silly for them to exist.

Most Orthodox parishes who use the western rite are under Antioch, but there are also some wr ROCOR parishes. Western Rite isn't a separate jurisdiction or anything.

Mary

[Silentchapel]

I once asked my priest if Roman Catholics will ever return to Orthodoxy. He just said: "Did Hell freeze over yet?" :)
Thing is, I doubt such a large-scale event will ever occur. After all, they have a 1000 years worth of saints they wouldn't be so keen on abandoning - not even to mention all the dogmas that Roman Catholics hold dear, like Papal Infalibility or Immaculate Conception.
Don't get me wrong, Roman Catholics returning - a dream come true.

[eoe]

there are also some wr ROCOR parishes.

:eek:

Of all the groups ROCOR would have been on my list of "Least likely to ever do anything WR".

[Lotar]

The only way I see it happening is if I get elected Emperor of the USA, conquer Italy and force the Pope to shed the RCC's false doctrines and reunite with the Church.

[Lotar]

:eek:

Of all the groups ROCOR would have been on my list of "Least likely to ever do anything WR".

They even have a western rite monastary.

[Oblio]

It is a huge mess and quite possibly a matter of semantics


/me unlocks the popcorn cabinet ...

[eoe]

They even have a western rite monastary.
:eek:


* Oblio unlocks the popcorn cabinet ...
Don't pop it. I am not saying another word on the topic. I was attempting to be charitable....

[Adammi]

Question, has anyone ever heard anything about the relationship of the RC and EO being similar to that of Judea and Israel in the OT?

[Oblio]

Don't pop it. I am not saying another word on the topic. I was attempting to be charitable....


I know you were eoe, and it's not you I am worried about :)

[Oblio]

If the West ever does come back home, they will need to get thee to the Beard & Funny Hat Shoppe :cool:

[irishseventysix]

If the West ever does come back home, they will need to get thee to the Beard & Funny Hat Shoppe :cool:
From my very limited perspective, it will take something radical for the RC to and the EOC to join up. But some pretty radical things are happening...we'll just see how Rome responds to it all.

In Western Europe and the US, the RC is becoming ever more divided between the more theologically liberal groups that aren't pro-life, that are pro-feminism, and pro-homosexuality. These groups are gaining power, just like they have within the Anglican/Episcopal churches.

If major church division happens between the two sides, it would seem to me that reconciliation with the more conservative RC would be easier, as it would if the Anglican/Episcopal church formally splits.

Otherwise, the much more theologically liberal sides of both churches will reject Orthodoxy as well. That issue has to be tackled, in my opinion, before the theological differences between RCC and EOC are sorted out.

And does anybody know about what's currently happening between the EO and the OO as far as reconciliation goes? How close are we functionally? What's being done? I really hope this happens in truth and in love.

[a_ntv]

At the time of the formation of the Unias, yes they were meant to supplant existing Orthodox patriarchates. Since the warming of relations between the churches however, they are not. The RCC has also officially renounced this model as a means of achieving reconciliation with Orthodoxy and has pledged not to proselytize among Orthodox believers.

Also, not all Eastern Catholic groups have Patriarchates. Some have major archbishops like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (though they would dearly love to get a patriarchate), and some are actually direct dependencies of Rome like the diocese of Mukachiv for the Rusyns in present day Ukraine. In addition, the existing Eastern Catholic Patriarchates do not have oversight of their overseas flock. It is currently not something Rome allows, so for instance the Melkite diocese in this country is a direct dependency of Rome and does not fall under the Omophorion of the Melkite Patriarch.

Too much information? Probably.



No, they don’t have their own hierarchy at all. Nor are the envisioned are purposed as distinct churches, they are liturgical rites.

The issues with reconciliation mostly come down to the exercise of primacy in the church (i.e. governance) and what do you do about dogma defined by one church without the participation of the other. The first issue is actually really tied in to the second as far as relations go between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In my opinion the difficulty to resolve the differences is pretty much just as great between the Roman Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox however.

Almost correct.

Anyway easter catholic churches are not only featured by the rites, but are indipendent churches, some of them very ancient (like Maronites): so these churches are not subject to the Canon Law (the internal law of catholic church), but have a own Law. Ad instance their synod is free to choose the bishops, that are almost always confermed by Rome. Anyway Rome this model is quite 'old' and cannot be used as a base for a possible re-unification with Orthodox Churches.

There are anyway already some cases of mutual agreement for inter-Communion between Eastern Catholic Churches and the equivalent orthodox churches: ad instance Syrian Orthodox Church has a agreement of inter-communion (and not only) with the Catholic Syrian Orthodox Church, and the ACOE has a agreement of inter-communion with the Chaldean Church.

In that, and considering also the good relationships with Armenians, probably the relationships between CC and OO/ACOE are easier than with EO.

Please note that, while many EO are un-happy for Eastern Catholic Churches, there are also the reverse side: ad instance in 1983 was found a EO patriarcate (Metropolia Patriarcal) in my town (in Italy), that never had any EO bishops or Orthodox tradition (and now have less than 20 faithfull on the sunday liturgy): so in my town we have a catholic archibishop (from 54 ac) and a EO partriarch (from 1984, see http://www.cesnur.org/religioni_italia/o/ortodossia_15.htm ): anyway that is not a proplem at all for Catholic Church!!!

[Lotar]

Please note that, while many EO are un-happy for Eastern Catholic Churches, there are also the reverse side: ad instance in 1983 was found a EO patriarcate (Metropolia Patriarcal) in my town (in Italy), that never had any EO bishops or Orthodox tradition (and now have less than 20 faithfull on the sunday liturgy): so in my town we have a catholic archibishop (from 54 ac) and a EO partriarch (from 1984, see http://www.cesnur.org/religioni_italia/o/ortodossia_15.htm ): anyway that is not a proplem at all for Catholic Church!!!

There is no canonical Orthodox patriarch in Italy. Italy is an archdiocese under the Ecumenical Patriarch.

[Ilian]

Anyway easter catholic churches are not only featured by the rites, but are indipendent churches, some of them very ancient (like Maronites): so these churches are not subject to the Canon Law (the internal law of catholic church), but have a own Law.

All of the Eastern churches are subject to Canon Law. The CCEO is an adaption of Roman Canon Law written for them and regulated by the dicastry in the Curia that oversees the Eastern and Oriental Churches. It is not a canonical tradition native to the East, that is one of the main problems with it.


Ad instance their synod is free to choose the bishops, that are almost always confermed by Rome.

Rome has an unfornate habit of getting involved in this process though, the Melkite Patriarch actually pointed this out in an interview not to long ago. The elections are of course subject to the approval of Rome to complete the confirmation.

There are anyway already some cases of mutual agreement for inter-Communion between Eastern Catholic Churches and the equivalent orthodox churches: ad instance Syrian Orthodox Church has a agreement of inter-communion (and not only) with the Catholic Syrian Orthodox Church, and the ACOE has a agreement of inter-communion with the Chaldean Church.

The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch has separate agreements with both the Melkite and the Syriac Patriarchs to minister to one another's flocks when their own sacraments are unavailable, that is true.

[InnerPhyre]

I would rather honestly see the conservative Anglican churches come to Orthodoxy. Their faith is a lot closer to ours than the RC faith.

[gzt]

The conservative Anglicans I know are Evangelical.

[Grigorii]

eoe,
you mentioned the OO coming back first.
Is that the Oriental Orthodox ?
If it is , I never new they weren't part of the EO.Whats the storey (readers digest version)..Thanx
...........In Christ, Shawners

The christological language of the Oriental Orthodox is shaped exclusively by St. Cyril of Alexandria. This exclusivity is absolutely uncompromising. This uncompromising christology is encoded into the Nicene Creed, it emphasizes the Divine action and activity in the Incarnation. It is the approach to christology we recognize in St. Athanasius in his defense of the Nicene Creed against Arianism. This christology has been called Alexandrian Christology.

Chalcedon was not as uncompromisingly Cyrillian, it adopts some of the theological point of what has been called Antiochian Christology (an extreme version of which was defended by Nestorius). Chalcedon is an attempt to integrate Antiochian and Alexandrian christologies insofar as both are Orthodox. For the Antiochian Christology does not necessarily lead to the heresy called Nestorianism (it is debated how Nestorian Nestorius himself was) which identifies two personal subjects in Jesus Christ. Likewise, the Alexandrian Christology does not necessarily lead into the heresy called Eutychianism or Monophysitism (it is also under debate if Eutychius was indeed a monophysite). Monophysitism would be the heresy which identifies only one nature in Christ, the Divine. There is no humanity in Him. He is fully Divine, even His flesh is Divine not creaturely.

The attempt to have these two christologies meet and creatively interact failed. Semantic misunderstandings, theological variations, political ambitions all played their part. Chalcedon was received in the Latin and Eastern part of the Orthodox Church but not so in the Orient. They have remained loyal to their traditions and still are. I find it extremely difficult to say the OO have left us and need to return to us. The leaving was in fact mutual and the return would require humility and repentance on both our parts. Steps have been taken in this direction, and still are. Progress is slow. Prayer, repentance, and humility are needed.

The OO are dealing with Chalcedon and the christological expositions of St. Leo of Rome, and we are dealing with the theological insights of St. Severus of Antioch and what the problems were at Chalcedon from a Cyrillian point of view. For the first time in centuries we're listening to one another and the effort and intent of Chalcedon may yet be completed.

Gregorios

[Lotar]

The conservative Anglicans I know are Evangelical.

I believe Mike was refering to conservative Anglo-Catholics (evangelical Anglicans aren't really "conservative" except in the moral sense)

[Lotar]

St. Severus of Antioch


Severus was a heretic.

[InnerPhyre]

I believe Mike was refering to conservative Anglo-Catholics (evangelical Anglicans aren't really "conservative" except in the moral sense)


Not specifically the Anglo-Catholics, but just those who adhere to the traditional Anglican faith, which is far more orthodox than RCism. My girlfriend is Anglican and I go to mass with her on wednesday mornings and am constantly amazed by what I hear preached from the puplit. It is for all intents and purposes Western Orthodox Christianity. I sat down with her priest for a good long while and talked about the differences in our faith and the only difference the two of us could find is that they allow non-Anglicans to commune. He's also outraged by what's going on in the ECUSA these days and has called the new female primate a heretic. So I mean yea there are the wacky liberal anglicans....and then there are the orthodox variety. I think that we should focus on bringing the orthodox ones in to true Orthodoxy rather than worrying about Rome, which will only convert by an act of God.

[gzt]

Yes: the traditional Anglicans I know are very Evangelical. 39 articles and all that.

And the traditional Catholics I know are quite orthodox, far more so than Anglicanism.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Yes: the traditional Anglicans I know are very Evangelical. 39 articles and all that.

And the traditional Catholics I know are quite orthodox, far more so than Anglicanism.

No, traditional catholicism is still light years from Orthodox Christianity. The differences are simply too deep and too great to number. Having studied Rome at a very deep depth, being a former Roman Seminarian, the differences are black and white to me.

[Grigorii]

Severus was a heretic.

We will have to disagree concerning St. Severus of Antioch. Fr. John Behr (prof. of Patristics at Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary) has written a very good article in St. Nerses Quarterly a couple of years ago concerning this Oriental Orthodox saint's theology. He could find no heresy, neither can I. There is an obvious onesidedness in him, but all that Chalcedon affirms and denies, is affirmed and denied by St. Severus. The growing ecumenical relations with our Oriental brethren continuous to show the unity and oneness of our common faith. This common faith has been expressed in official and unofficial common christological declarations agreed upon by both sides. However, we are not there yet, work still needs to be done. Not in the least the mutual education of our peoples. Personally I believe that the interaction we have at Saint Vladimir's with Oriental Orthodox students is one way in which progress towards re-union is built. Though Oriental Orthodox are not allowed to participate in our sacraments, they do study, live, and pray with us and this has been a very enriching experience to us. Of course all of this is under review of the Hierarchy of the Orthodox jurisdictions connected to Saint Vladimir's and the limits they have set are strictly enforced.

Gregorios

[Adammi]

I sat down with her priest for a good long while and talked about the differences in our faith
Now, I am NOT one to say anything, or of any importance to give my opinion on this, but I think that a reuniting won't begin as much with primates and theologians, as it will with the laymen interacting with each other like InnerPhyre has said here.

[Ilian]

And the traditional Catholics I know are quite orthodox, far more so than Anglicanism.

Indeed. All Anglicanism is Protestant, even the ritualist movement that spun out of it in the 19th century is still Protestant under the covers and by nature.

The Catholics and Oriental Orthodox are close to us in a number of ways.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Indeed. All Anglicanism is Protestant, even the ritualist movement that spun out of it in the 19th century is still Protestant under the covers and by nature.

The Catholics and Oriental Orthodox are close to us in a number of ways.

True Catholics are like us, but they are different from us in almost as many ways as they are like us.

[Shubunkin]

The only way I see it happening is if I get elected Emperor of the USA, conquer Italy and force the Pope to shed the RCC's false doctrines and reunite with the Church.

Sounds like a plan!! ;)

:clap: ^_^

[gzt]

Mad Repper: I agree with you that Catholicism is not Orthodoxy and has quite a ways to go until it approaches. But a counterpoint has to be made to those who insist traditional Anglicanism is closer than Catholicism. It's the sort of thing only a recent Catholic convert who doesn't know much about Anglicanism could say. I mean, certainly, there are some Anglicans who are closer than some Catholics and some Catholics who are closer than some Anglicans. No denying that. There may even be some decent-sized pockets which are like that. And they'd be low-hanging fruit come whatever final apostasy they're waiting for before they'll leave - there aren't many candidates left for such an action, but I'm sure there's something. But, seriously, the only things most types of conservative or traditional Anglicanism has in common with Orthodoxy to the exclusion of Catholicism is antinomian tendencies in the name of not being legalists like the Catholics, a secret yearning for schism, an occasional love of vagueness rather than definition in the name of "mystery", and not being popish.

[a_ntv]

Mad Repper: I agree with you that Catholicism is not Orthodoxy and has quite a ways to go until it approaches. But a counterpoint has to be made to those who insist traditional Anglicanism is closer than Catholicism. It's the sort of thing only a recent Catholic convert who doesn't know much about Anglicanism could say. I mean, certainly, there are some Anglicans who are closer than some Catholics and some Catholics who are closer than some Anglicans. No denying that. There may even be some decent-sized pockets which are like that. And they'd be low-hanging fruit come whatever final apostasy they're waiting for before they'll leave - there aren't many candidates left for such an action, but I'm sure there's something. But, seriously, the only things most types of conservative or traditional Anglicanism has in common with Orthodoxy to the exclusion of Catholicism is antinomian tendencies in the name of not being legalists like the Catholics, a secret yearning for schism, an occasional love of vagueness rather than definition in the name of "mystery", and not being popish.

I agree.

IMO Catholic Church is between Anglican and Orthodox.

For Catholics, the Apostolic Root is very important: and the Anglicans are rooted in the Church of Rome, differently from Orthodoxes who rightly have their own separated Apostolic roots: that is the reason why we can ask Anglicans to return in the CC, and not to became Orthodox: they are West, not East.

In the Caholic Church there is a debate about creating 'a anglican rite' and and so a new 'catholic anglican church', that, like Easter Catholic Chruches, could beunited to Rome but keep his own tradition (as the rite, marriage for priests)...we will see

[Michael the Iconographer]

Mad Repper: I agree with you that Catholicism is not Orthodoxy and has quite a ways to go until it approaches. But a counterpoint has to be made to those who insist traditional Anglicanism is closer than Catholicism. It's the sort of thing only a recent Catholic convert who doesn't know much about Anglicanism could say. I mean, certainly, there are some Anglicans who are closer than some Catholics and some Catholics who are closer than some Anglicans. No denying that.

I agree with you there, but I would have to say both Traditional Anglicanism and Traditional Catholicism are two sides of the same coin and are light years from being Orthodox.