As a solution to ecumenical difficulties is there any way that either the Latin Church could simply cease to have communion with Eastern Catholic Churches and suggest that they to be part of their sister Orthodox Churches again or that the Eastern Catholic Church Patriarches and Episcopos themselves could tell this to the laity?

A sort of reversal of the process started decades or centuries ago which led to this forum I am typing on now existing .

A forced return to Orthodox communion, but this time at the initiative of Rome? Rome severing communion with the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I believe that your question presupposes that the resolution of "ecumenical difficulties" constitutes a higher priority than communion with the Apostolic See of Saint Peter and Paul, the "matrix" of Christian unity.

To my mind, this would represent a complete reversal of everything that was said at and since Vatican II.

It also presupposes:

a. All Orthodox jurisdictions would want us back (which may or may not be the case).
b. We would want to go back and live under Orthodox Church polity (which may or may not be the case).

Forced communion never works out in the long term, as was seen in Eastern Europe under Stalin. Once the Soviet empire crumbled, look at how many Orthodox churches suddenly declared themselves to be Eastern Catholic!

SO...while the ideal of full Christian communion is absolutely something to strive for, I believe that the scenario you outline would never happen without there first being some accord or restoration of communion made between the respective Orthodox Church and Rome.

God bless,

Gordo

Shlomo Xristoforos,

You have also made an assumption that is not correct. Not all Eastern Catholics belong to Eastern Orthodox Churches, nor do all Eastern Catholic Churches have counterparts, such as my Church the Maronites nor the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

There is no ecclesiastical authority at all which has any right to deprive its own members of their freedom of religion. In the case of Catholics, not even the Pope can "extradite" Catholics to some other Christian Church or ecclesial body.

At the same time, the Catholic Church does not seek to "hold" people against their will. The Church is not a slave market or an ante-bellum Southern plantation. If there are people who seriously believe that they are in the wrong Church, then they are free to seek out the right Church and join it - however, that entitlement works in both directions. Orthodox who wish to become Greek-Catholics have precisely the same right as Catholics who wish to become Orthodox.

And there is another question - do the Orthodox really want the Greek-Catholics? One suspects that the answer is not an unmitigated, enthusiastic affirmative. What some Orthodox really seem to want is that the Greek-Catholics should become Latins, and therefore cease to "confuse the issue", whatever "the issue" may be.

But likewise no Catholic authority is able to "deprive" people of their legitimate liturgical traditions, recognized for many centuries by Popes and General Councils. In several cases, that recognition is also expressed by signed, bi-lateral agreements, which would make it even more impossible for Rome to revoke it.

But there is a circumstance which would make everything incredibly easier - the resolution of schism. The Greek-Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and All the East has long made it clear that as soon as ecclesiastical communion is restored between these specific Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates and Rome, the "Melkite" structure will be brought to an end by the resignation of all the "Melkite" hierarchs with an arrangement for the relevant Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates to receive the clergy, faithful, and parishes.

That would answer many problems, although not all of them. The Churches which suffered from the Communist attempt to force them to break with Rome are not going to be in a rush to submit themselves to what they continue to regard as a highly oppressive and cynical group of State Churches. Trying to coerce them will not work.

For the moment, the way forward involves love, prayer, and patience.

Christ is Risen!

Fr. Serge

I don't believe the Church of Rome would officially (or could officially) ever do this. That being said, I have believed for a while now, that there are those at "lower levels" who look to say " Choose! become Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Choose where you want to be and don't try to have a "schitzophrenic" relationship between the Churches."

Job

X. B!

As far as universal (catholic) Orthodoxy, It is too grand of a scope for me to comprehend, so if I can get a little local…

Well Father since it is time of the Resurrection let us really brainstorm the miraculous. As far as Europe’s largest all-inclusive country what if Kyiv is made a patriarchate and keeps communion with all three Romes? Remember we believe in the Resurrection.

If we are going local lets go really local Job. How about those parish clerics who say to their congregation either you conform to my form of “Radical Orthodoxy” (new movement serf it) or go to another church. RC or Orthodox I don’t care just not MINE.

Such a schizophrenic relationship does not always exist. There are many of us who are very confident in both our Eastern identity and full communion with Rome. That is not to say that there is not a sense of tension at times, but such tensions are dynamic and common in a "mixed" family...one could even say creative and engaging. For my part, I could neither become a Latin Catholic nor could I ever leave communion with Rome and choose the Orthodox churches, as much as I love and respect my Orthodox bretheren. As Father Serge once said, if the Eastern Catholic Churches did not exist we would have to create them!

Where schizophrenia exists, IMHO, is where there are those who outright deny as heretical or severely defective the official teachings of the Catholic communion and yet still remain in that communion. It is one thing to say, "I do not know how to reconcile this with my understanding, so dear God I believe and help my unbelief!" It is quite another to say "I sit in judgment upon Catholic teaching and find it wanting and erroneous, but still remain in visible communion." Personally I would advocate for a change of posture rather than a change of place, but everyone must follow the light of their hopefully informed and formed conscience.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I realize my ideas are too silly. They are pipe dreams.

As far as I know 85% of Eastern Catholics have a sister Orthodox Church. Sorry if I left out the Maronites, Italo-Albanians, Malabars and whoever else there is.

"I believe that your question presupposes that the resolution of "ecumenical difficulties" constitutes a higher priority than communion with the Apostolic See of Saint Peter and Paul, the "matrix" of Christian unity."

It is not so much that I think ecumenical difficulties constitute a higher priority than communion with the Apostolic See of St Peter. What I feel is that there simply is not enough eastern and western theological unity or agreement to justify Eastern Catholic Churches having communion with St Peter's See at this time. post-schism Eastern-Western Theology that others say complements I say contradicts. For me the Eastern Catholic Churches have a feeling of being an artificial political creation, something existing solely for political purposes. I tire of having to constantly defend myself to Orthodox people who are not in communion with Rome. I know others share at least a few of these feelings and find it very sad.

As a Roman Catholic starting transerfing to the Byzantine Catholic Church I can say that I do not think THIS WILL EVER HAPPEN. Those who say choose do not understand what the word Catholic is supposed to mean. I agree those with power have spoken of how they feel the importance of us being one united church and would not do anything to cause further seperation. Those who say choose are usually in my experience mostly the fair weather Christians who are all about there faith but somehow absent from church on Sunday. I actually had a woman staying with us last weekend who went on and on about the Greek Orthodox Church and tradition and how we should just switch over. It was there Easter and it was time for the Orthox Church Liturgy so I mentioned how it was time for the liturgy and she said, "oh I'm not going, I'm going to stay here and cook." I had to try my hardest to bite my toung and not say "If you love your faith so much why are you choosing to cook over spending time with the Lord on the Holiest day in your Church" She was not even an Easter Christmas Christian but a Dining Room table Christian.

I am reminded of the great quote from the soon to be Blessed John Henry Newman:

"One thousand difficulties do not constitute a single doubt."

Polemics on both sides have forced issues to appear more contradictory than perhaps they really are. I would say, if you are getting tired of justifying the existence of your Church to your Orthodox friends:

a. Get new friends (advisable in some cases but not all. I have good friends with whom I profoundly disagree on a number of issues and yet care for them tremendously).

b. Demonstrate forcefully (and it is very possible) that Orthodoxy has its own very real difficulties and perhaps they should focus on removing the log from their own eye before attacking your faith community. The writings of Vladimir Solvyov are a good place to start.

c. Stop reading polemical material or accepting anti-Catholic assertions couched as the "Eastern perspective" at face value. Besides that type of writing represents the worst - not the best - of Orthodoxy, but unfortunately it creeps into many purportedly non-polemical works. I find this quite often the case where out of a very positive and praiseworthy desire to return to our full Eastern heritage we unquestioningly accept the almost magisterial assertions of various Eastern Orthodox theologians or bloggers as reflective of the full Eastern or Patristic tradition, when in fact such things have not been (nor often could they be) defined authoritatively. In such cases, they offer opinion and nothing more.

d. Use the liturgical hymnography of the Church as your principal magisterial source, as well as your Church hierarchy. Study the Fathers and not someone who claims to speak for them. Delve into the Scriptures and above all pray and ask for the light of the Holy Spirit. I cannot tell you how often I have done these things and found in them a tremendous source of peace.

e. Above all, love your Church. Even in its weakness it is still the Bride of Christ.

God bless,

Gordo

I am not sure discussing the differences in Catholic Latin and Catholic Eastern theology (if they exist) in a vague way is useful. If severe differences in theology exist, maybe a church council is the way to solve them. If they are minor differences, perhaps that's just something to be tolerated by sister churches within the Catholic Church. But let's set forth what these differences are.

To set them forth, let's not look to Orthodox polemics and readers of such polemics. Instead, let's look to the primary sources (Bible, church councils, canon law, Fathers, catechisms, liturgical texts, documents of hierarchs, etc). Let's cite these in the forum (with quotes) and let's cite any authoritive Catholic (which includes pre-schism materials) interpretations (with quotes). Until we get to that point, the remedy seems unnecessary to discuss. And I am not aware, in my limited knowledge, of things getting to that point in on this website.

Also, a church cannot split every time a disagreement comes up. They must be worked out over time.

Finally, if you accept that the Catholic Church is the true church (I know many people here don't and I do not seek to argue about it), you must have faith and hope in that Church. Faith and hope would include faith and hope in the hierarchy. This faith and hope should lead us to consult with our priests and bishops, not to seek excommunication by the Pope.

That's just my opinion, which is worth as much as I charged for it.

Felix

Xristoforos,

Last point: The very good Orthodox folks that I know very rarely if ever put Eastern Catholics on the defensive. They can respectfully disagree and uphold their views, but without pressing folks to defend their ecclesiastical status.

That kind of spirit is more reflective of the best of Orthodoxy - when it is most catholic in belief and praxis. My comments were not addressed to that kind of Orthodox Christian, but rather to the kind that would make you feel that you had to defend who and where you are.

God bless,

Gordo

frankly, I am glad (and grateful to the Name) of my status as a Russian Catholic, no, make that Eastern, as all Eastern Catholics are my sisters and brothers. I don't see myself as trying to straddle two worlds, but as a witness to both Roman and Orthodox worlds. I would resent much being dumped as an inconvenience by Rome and being Constantinople's red headed freckle faced step son.besides, for all the centuries that this has been argued about ECs, I would hate to see all of the dialogue and apologetics just have been a monumentous waste of time.
Much Love,
Jonn

In any event, schism is never the answerto the question!


Oh, there's a word for that.

"Baptist."



No, I'm not being snarky. There are Baptist groups that have trouble holding a budget meeting without a bitter theological fight/debate. The answer withing these groups is schism. {and, no, this isn't my Catholic evaluation; it comes from a Baptist theology professor from my undergraduate days).

hawk

p.s. An edit to add a snarky microsoft jab: On reading this, I recalled the advice, "If Windows is the answer, you asked the wrong question."

dochawk (and my other brethren here):

Please forgive the little aside. As a student of language, would you be kind enough to give me some background on where this word comes from and bit more focus on its exact meaning.

I guess my age is showing because it seems to be a word current with people younger than I.

However, that being said, I kind of like the way it sounds, if that makes any sense.

BOB