A glimpse at our Eastern & Western Christian Churches

[cradleGO]

You claimed that the Ukrainians entered into communion because of the incident you refer to, but in reality, it was limited to Western Ukrainians who were forcibly, by military force, to be clear, made to recognize the Pope as their Patriarchate, as part of the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in which Ukrainians were furthermore very much second-class citizens).

So the Greek Catholic hierarchs were obedient to the coercion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, long after the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth dissolved. Is that what you believe? It is as I say, not your tale.

 

[cradleGO]

You wrote the following:



This paragraph suggests, to me at least, that we investigated Mormonism in an optimistic manner.

Not credible.

 

[The Liturgist]

So the Greek Catholic hierarchs were obedient to the coercion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, long after the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth dissolved. Is that what you believe? It is as I say, not your tale.

Obviously, after the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was established, it was inevitable that some people would become attached to it, including its bishops, as a result of catechesis. Its just like what happened in Kerala: the Portuguese caused a Roman takeover of the Indian Orthodox, but only a portion of the people resisted, and thus the Syro Malabar Catholic Church continues to exist to this day despite the fact that the Portuguese have been gone for centuries. And there is also now a Malankara Catholic Church which uses the West Syriac Rite, which had been adopted by the Mar Thoma Christians who refused to accept Catholic control. The Roman Catholic Church is very good at engendering the creation of Eastern Catholic churches, as is witnessed by the fact that they have instantiated one for literally every Eastern and Oriental Orthodox church.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is not true. Show me where "full communion" is a thing. Churches are either in communion or they are not.
Those churches that did not accept the 4th Ecumenical Council - Chalcedon - need only to adopt its provisions. They don't even need to change their verbiage - my opinion - just issue the statement by their Synod/Assembly of Bishops/Faithful Assembly. Then after an investigation, and barring anything else, they will be accepted into Orthodoxy, I believe. Neither hard nor exotic.

Well that might be what you want to see, but the Antiochians and Alexandrian Greeks had other, more practical ideas. Specifically in the case of Antiochian-Syriac Orthodox relations, with the exception of the autonomous province of the AOCNA, they are now governed by this agreement:

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.

To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch:

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obey, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

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.

Every endeavor and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Having recognized the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christianity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
14. 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.

Damascus
12 November 1991

Patriarch Ignatios IV
of the Greek Antiochian Church

Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

We saw the fruits of this agreement in effect during the Syrian Civil War, when all members of both churches, including members of the AOCNA, prayed for the return of Metropolitan Peter of Aleppo and Archbishop Gregory of Aleppo, who were abducted while traveling back to that city together from Lebanon (the car they were traveling in disappeared without a trace).

 

[cradleGO]

Well, actually, it is not the same process, in that the Church of Constantinople did not grant a tomos of autocephaly to various ancient churches which predate its existence, such as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus, all of which have always been autocephalous (as was Rome, when it was in communion with us). Likewise, the OCA received its Tomos from the Moscow Patriarchate, but unfortunately the Patriarch of Constantinople still has not recognized its autocephaly, although fortunately that has not precluded its membership in SCOBA.

The fact that I did not mention the OCU was not an intentional omission, for I was not providing a complete list of autocephalous churches, and I believe I made that clear in the text. For example, I did not mention the Church of Cyprus. Obviously that was not an intentional omission; the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus is thoroughly uncontroversial, but as it was I feel I mentioned too many churches, and the result was it looked like something of a laundry list; had I mentioned any more it would have been untenable.

Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are patriarchates - to me, the only valid patriarchates - and Cyprus is a special category, and deserves to be 5th in the diptychs of the Orthodox Church. And the Church of Constantinople did grant a Tomos of autocephaly to Kyiv in 2019.
The naming of the OCA was a ploy to undermine the authority of the EP in the New World. No reflection on the Faithful that attend. The OCA hierarchs have always been invited to pan-Orthodox meetings in the US.
An aside: When the war in Ukraine has been concluded, the Orthodox Church needs to have another Great Synod, that affirms the resolutions of the last synod, and re-orders the diptychs in strict date order - among other things.

 

[cradleGO]

Well that might be what you want to see, but the Antiochians and Alexandrian Greeks had other, more practical ideas. Specifically in the case of Antiochian-Syriac Orthodox relations, with the exception of the autonomous province of the AOCNA, they are now governed by this agreement:



We saw the fruits of this agreement in effect during the Syrian Civil War, when all members of both churches, including members of the AOCNA, prayed for the return of Metropolitan Peter of Aleppo and Archbishop Gregory of Aleppo, who were abducted while traveling back to that city together from Lebanon (the car they were traveling in disappeared without a trace).

The letter is an accommodation, no more, no less. It is how 2 Christian churches in a hostile land agree to deal with each other. There is not a whiff of "in communion" about it.
Now the Roman Catholic Church has worked out something with the oriental Assyrian Church of the East as to sacraments under certain circumstances. How it does this is a record setting Olympic event of theological gymnastics (that is, double talk). But the letter is no where near that.

 

[The Liturgist]

Now the Roman Catholic Church has worked out something with the oriental Assyrian Church of the East as to sacraments under certain circumstances.

1. The Church of the East is not Oriental Orthodox.
2. They practice semi-open communion (specifically, anyone who believes in the Real Presence can partake of the Eucharist at their liturgies).
3. Rome has granted a blanket authorization for Orthodox and Assyrians to receive sacraments in Catholic parishes, and for Roman Catholics to receive sacraments from them, in both cases this is obviously contingent on the Orthodox or Assyrians agreeing to it. In practice, since the Church of the East will communicate anyone who receives the Eucharist, they are the only Eastern church that will consistently give the Eucharist to Roman Catholics, but I don’t know if Assyrians are allowed by their own church to partake at Catholic churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

The letter is an accommodation, no more, no less. It is how 2 Christian churches in a hostile land agree to deal with each other. There is not a whiff of "in communion" about it.

The document doesn’t seem to agree with you. To wit:

• 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.
• 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 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.
• Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.

Also, this was adopted in 1991, when conditions for Christians in Syria, Turkey and Iraq, where the two churches have overlapping jurisdiction, were a thousand times better than today. It was not really a “hostile land.” Since then, conditions in Lebanon, where the two also overlap, have possibly improved, but things are much much worse everywhere else.

Finally, this document applies to the diaspora everywhere except in the AOCNA, which is an autonomous church that until the death of St. Tikhon of Moscow, was actually part of the Russian Orthodox Church, initially under the leadership of St. Rafael of Brooklyn, which is why the AOCNA hymnal consists not just of Syro-Byzantine chant, but also of English translations of music shared with the OCA, ROCOR and the MP Diocese. The AOCNA has been autonomous since at least the reign of Metropolitan Anthony Bashir.

At any rate, the Antiochian Orthodox would not have entered into such an agreement with the Syriac Orthodox if they thought they were heretics, nor would the Alexandrian Greeks have done a similiar agreement with the Coptic Orthodox.

By your logic, the Antiochian Orthodox should have done a similar agreement with the Melkites, Maronites and Assyrians, but they did not.

I would argue that the remaining Eastern Orthodox community in Turkey would be much better off if a similar agreement was entered into between the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Patriarchs of Constantinople, and with the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of the same city.

 

[cradleGO]

The document doesn’t seem to agree with you. To wit:

• 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.
• 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 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.
• Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.

Also, this was adopted in 1991, when conditions for Christians in Syria, Turkey and Iraq, where the two churches have overlapping jurisdiction, were a thousand times better than today. It was not really a “hostile land.” Since then, conditions in Lebanon, where the two also overlap, have possibly improved, but things are much much worse everywhere else.

Finally, this document applies to the diaspora everywhere except in the AOCNA, which is an autonomous church that until the death of St. Tikhon of Moscow, was actually part of the Russian Orthodox Church, initially under the leadership of St. Rafael of Brooklyn, which is why the AOCNA hymnal consists not just of Syro-Byzantine chant, but also of English translations of music shared with the OCA, ROCOR and the MP Diocese. The AOCNA has been autonomous since at least the reign of Metropolitan Anthony Bashir.

At any rate, the Antiochian Orthodox would not have entered into such an agreement with the Syriac Orthodox if they thought they were heretics, nor would the Alexandrian Greeks have done a similiar agreement with the Coptic Orthodox.

By your logic, the Antiochian Orthodox should have done a similar agreement with the Melkites, Maronites and Assyrians, but they did not.

I would argue that the remaining Eastern Orthodox community in Turkey would be much better off if a similar agreement was entered into between the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Patriarchs of Constantinople, and with the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of the same city.

For all of that show me where there is a whiff of "in communion" in the document. You quoted the preamble which is high minded, but the actual numbered terms have nothing to do with "in communion". Nothing close to that.

 

[cradleGO]

1. The Church of the East is not Oriental Orthodox.
2. They practice semi-open communion (specifically, anyone who believes in the Real Presence can partake of the Eucharist at their liturgies).
3. Rome has granted a blanket authorization for Orthodox and Assyrians to receive sacraments in Catholic parishes, and for Roman Catholics to receive sacraments from them, in both cases this is obviously contingent on the Orthodox or Assyrians agreeing to it. In practice, since the Church of the East will communicate anyone who receives the Eucharist, they are the only Eastern church that will consistently give the Eucharist to Roman Catholics, but I don’t know if Assyrians are allowed by their own church to partake at Catholic churches.

The Assyrian Church of the East does not accept the 4th EC - Chalcedon. However it characterizes itself, and the nature(s) of Christ using their terms (there is a language element), the Assyrian Church of the East only needs to affirm its agreement with the work of the 4th EC and all is good.
Whatever the rationale of the Roman Catholics is regarding the Assyrian Church of the East, they have allied themselves with non-Chalcedonians.

For me, the problem appears to be that the Church took over 400 years to prepare a concise statement as to the nature of the Godhead. Some at that time did not accept it. Now, it seems that those same folks are saying, 'Yes, we actually agree with Chalcedon, but this is how we say it'. Or. 'it really means the same thing'. All they have to do is affirm the 4th EC. I think that would prime them to be brought into communion with the EO.